Independent Scientific Review Panel

for the Northwest Power Planning Council

Preliminary Review

of

Fiscal Year 2001 Project Proposals

for the Columbia River Gorge

and Inter-Mountain Provinces

ISRP 2000-8

October 6, 2000
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

Columbia River Gorge Reviewers

Jack Griffith

Susan S. Hanna

Brian Riddell

William Smoker

Bruce Ward

Richard N. Williams

Inter-Mountain Reviewers

Charles C. Coutant

Jack Griffith

Susan S. Hanna

Nancy Huntly

Lyman McDonald

Richard R. Whitney

Ray White

Richard N. Williams
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

i

Independent Scientific Review Panel

Preliminary Review of Fiscal Year 2001 Project Proposals for

the Columbia River Gorge and Inter-Mountain Provinces

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

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

Background on Preliminary Recommendations ................................................................. 4

The Next Step: ISRP Response Review and CBFWA Prioritization ................................. 5

The Final Step: Northwest Power Planning Council Recommendations to the Bonneville

Power Administration ......................................................................................................... 6

General Issues ..................................................................................................................... 6

Reviewer Comments on Inter-Mountain Province Proposals........................................... 11

ProjectID: 21003............................................................................................................ 11

ProjectID: 21006............................................................................................................ 12

ProjectID: 21032............................................................................................................ 13

ProjectID: 21023............................................................................................................ 14

ProjectID: 21029............................................................................................................ 15

ProjectID: 21025............................................................................................................ 16

ProjectID: 21034............................................................................................................ 17

ProjectID: 21035............................................................................................................ 18

ProjectID: 199502700.................................................................................................... 22

ProjectID: 198503800.................................................................................................... 24

ProjectID: 199104600.................................................................................................... 25

ProjectID: 199404300.................................................................................................... 27

ProjectID: 199104700.................................................................................................... 29

ProjectID: 199500900.................................................................................................... 29

ProjectID: 199502800.................................................................................................... 30

ProjectID: 21021............................................................................................................ 32

ProjectID: 199106200.................................................................................................... 32

ProjectID: 199204800.................................................................................................... 33

ProjectID: 199506700.................................................................................................... 33

ProjectID: 199800300.................................................................................................... 34

ProjectID: 21008............................................................................................................ 35

ProjectID: 21020............................................................................................................ 36

ProjectID: 21022............................................................................................................ 38

ProjectID: 21017............................................................................................................ 39

ProjectID: 21018............................................................................................................ 40

ProjectID: 21030............................................................................................................ 41

ProjectID: 21031............................................................................................................ 41

ProjectID: 199501100.................................................................................................... 42

ProjectID: 199001800.................................................................................................... 42

ProjectID: 21002............................................................................................................ 44
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

ii

Reviewer Comments on Columbia River Gorge Province Proposals .............................. 44

ProjectID: 21012............................................................................................................ 44

ProjectID: 21005............................................................................................................ 45

ProjectID: 21013............................................................................................................ 47

ProjectID: 21011............................................................................................................ 47

Reviewer Comments on the Hood River Subbasin and Hood River Production Program

(HRPP)........................................................................................................................... 48

ProjectID: 198805307.................................................................................................... 50

ProjectID: 198805304.................................................................................................... 51

ProjectID: 198902900.................................................................................................... 52

ProjectID: 198805303.................................................................................................... 53

ProjectID: 199500700.................................................................................................... 53

ProjectID: 199802100.................................................................................................... 54

ProjectID: 199304000.................................................................................................... 55

ProjectID: 199304001.................................................................................................... 56

ProjectID: 21001............................................................................................................ 56

ProjectID: 21014............................................................................................................ 57

ProjectID: 21015............................................................................................................ 58

ProjectID: 21016............................................................................................................ 58

ProjectID: 21019............................................................................................................ 59

ProjectID: 199801900.................................................................................................... 59

ProjectID: 21010............................................................................................................ 60

ProjectID: 21024............................................................................................................ 61

ProjectID: 21009............................................................................................................ 62

ProjectID: 21033............................................................................................................ 63

Reviewer Comments on the Klickitat Subbasin and the Klickitat Production Project

(KFP) ............................................................................................................................. 63

ProjectID: 198811525.................................................................................................... 67

ProjectID: 198812025.................................................................................................... 67

ProjectID: 199506325.................................................................................................... 68

ProjectID: 199701725.................................................................................................... 69

ProjectID: 199705600.................................................................................................... 69

ProjectID: 199405400.................................................................................................... 70

ProjectID: 21004............................................................................................................ 71

ProjectID: 21026............................................................................................................ 72

ProjectID: 21027............................................................................................................ 73

ProjectID: 21028............................................................................................................ 74

Attachment 1 - ISRP Review Criteria............................................................................... 75

Attachment 2 - Table of Proposals with ISRP Preliminary Recommendation, Indication if

Response Is Needed, and Score Level. Sorted by Province, then Project Number.

Includes Page Index. ......................................................................................................... 77
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

1

Introduction

This report is the Independent Scientific Review Panel’s (ISRP) preliminary review of

proposals submitted for funding in the Columbia River Gorge and Inter-Mountain

provinces. This report provides project sponsors an opportunity to respond to the ISRP’s

preliminary comments and recommendations before the ISRP makes its final

recommendation to the Council on December 1, 2000. This report is also intended to be

available to inform the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority in its project

prioritization effort.

The report includes an overview of the evaluation process, identification of general

issues, and detailed comments for each project in the set. The report was reviewed and

commented upon by all of the ISRP review team members assigned to the subject

province. All recommendations were reached by consensus. The report was presented to

the full ISRP for review prior to release.

This report is the result of the first province reviews, and although the process can use

some fine-tuning, the ISRP is enthusiastic about the new approach. The ISRP found the

addition of subbasin summaries, site visits, and project sponsor presentations to be a

major improvement in the peer review process.

ISRP Review Process for Preliminary Report

Project evaluation and selection occurs 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 the subsequent steps

in the process are described below.

Proposal Review

By August 18th, proposals for the Columbia Gorge and Inter-Mountain provinces were

distributed to the ISRP and CBFWA review teams. To ensure the most consistent and fair

evaluation of proposals, standard formats and criteria were applied to all proposals. These

criteria are included below (see Attachment 1). At least three ISRP/Peer Review Group

members reviewed each proposal in detail based on the ISRP review criteria and

generated comments and scores prior to the proposal review workshop. These scores and

comments were not made available to the project sponsors at the workshop, but were

used by the ISRP to scope questions for the site visits and workshop presentations.

In addition, at least one ISRP reviewer was assigned to be familiar with the key technical

background material submitted along with the proposal.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

2

Project Review Workshop

The project review workshop for the Columbia Gorge province was held from September

11th - 15th; the Inter-Mountain from September 18th - 22nd. The workshops were split into

three stages: a) Site Visits (two days), b) Project Presentations (two days), and c) ISRP

Evaluation (ISRP only; one day).

a) Site Visits

The first two days of the workshop (September 11-12 for the Gorge and September

18-19 for the Inter-Mountain) were dedicated to a tour of the province by the ISRP

and CBFWA review teams. CBFWA organized the tour in consultation with the

ISRP, Council, BPA, and project sponsors. The tour was arranged to give the

reviewers a basic understanding of the ecological conditions and limiting factors in

the province so that the projects were placed in their geographic context. In addition,

the review teams visited a cross section of ongoing wildlife, habitat restoration, and

artificial production projects in each province.

The Inter-Mountain Province team covered a large amount of territory in northeastern

Washington by chartered bus, with periodic stops. Beginning at Spokane, the team

(with CBFWA representatives and many project staff) crossed the Spokane Indian

Reservation viewing dams on the Spokane River, wildlife habitat on the reservation,

and managed lakes. From the confluence of the Spokane and Columbia rivers in

lower Lake Roosevelt, the team drove nearly the full length of Lake Roosevelt to

Kettle Falls and several miles up the Kettle River, viewing shoreline erosion, net

pens, stream rehabilitation, and Sherman Creek Hatchery. The team crossed the

Colville Indian Reservation, viewing managed lakes, stream rehabilitation projects,

and large tracts of managed wildlife habitat in the Lake Roosevelt and San Poil

watersheds, as well as Lake Rufus Woods, Grand Coulee Dam, and Banks

Lake/Grand Coulee. The wild habitats of the reservations were contrasted with

seemingly endless agriculture on the return to Spokane from lower Banks Lake. The

long drives were filled by on-bus video presentations of areas we could not schedule

to see in person, oral presentations by project staffs, and general conversation with

participants about their projects and the landscape. The tour was ably facilitated by

the Lake Roosevelt Forum, which generated excellent maps. The ISRP team greatly

appreciated the lively, informal exchanges and the chance to see the landscape and

many project sites first-hand.

The Columbia Gorge review team made two excursions in the Gorge province. The

first was on the Washington side to the White and Wind River subbasins to visit the

Hemlock Dam and the Middle Wind River Restoration Project then to Condit Dam

and the Middle Rattlesnake Creek Project. The team then crossed the divide to travel

down the Klickitat subbasin where the team visited Leidl Bridge, Klickitat Mill, and

Lyle Falls. On the second day, the team traveled on the Oregon side up the Hood

River beginning with a visit to the Powerdale Dam Fish Facility, and visiting the Neal

Creek irrigation diversion site, the Baldwin Creek habitat restoration site, the

Parkdale Fish Facility, and the East Fork irrigation diversion site. The team crossed

the divide and traveled down the Fifteenmile Creek subbasin visiting habitat
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

3

restoration sites and opportunities, a desilting basin, a bioengineering site, and the

downstream migrant trap site (witnessing cleanup efforts at a major herbicide spill

accident then underway). The team profited from and is thankful for informal

discussions with project leaders during all of the excursions. These and the oral

presentations at Hood River were invaluable in making clear the nature of the

projects.

The ISRP teams appreciated reading the subbasin summaries and proposals before

taking the tour of the province. The tours and discussions with staff were given more

context and specificity by knowing what was actually being proposed. The value of

this prior reading was highlighted to certain team members who toured the Mountain

Columbia Province in August without having seen the relevant proposals (only

subbasin summaries). The sequence of subbasin summaries, proposals, tours, oral

presentations, ISRP deliberations, as occurred for the Inter-Mountain and Columbia

Gorge provinces seems to be the most appropriate and effective.

b) Project Presentations

Project presentations occurred during the third and fourth day of the workshop

(September 13-14 for the Gorge and September 20-21 for the Inter-Mountain). Each

set of subbasin presentations began with a presentation of the subbasin summaries.

All project proponents were given the opportunity to provide a concise presentation

on their project. Presentations were expected to address the proposal review criteria

including the relation of the proposed project to the subbasin summary. Following

each presentation, there was an opportunity for a question and answer session

between the reviewers and the project proponents. Each project was limited to about

15 minutes for the presentation, and the question and answer session.

The presentations often clarified matters left unclear in the written proposals.

Questioning clarified others. However, the oral presentation may have been seen by

some proposers as a substitute for a good written proposal, a belief that the ISRP team

wishes to dispel. Some proposers were more at ease giving oral justification for their

work than others, and some relied on more erudite project staff to field questions of

them (suggesting that the best person may not have been selected to give the

presentation). The ISRP team believes, however, that this is a useful exercise for both

the ISRP and the project staff.

The quality of the presentations varied. Future presentations will be strengthened by

attention to the following suggestions. Use of visual aids, especially orientation with

visual maps, is essential. Projects need to present data demonstrating the biological

results of past efforts rather than simply presenting lists of tasks accomplished or

planned. New research projects should demonstrate scientifically sound experimental

designs by describing hypotheses, sampling protocols, and statistical methods. The

initial presentation of a subbasin summary before each set of projects in the subbasin

was helpful. For the December 1 report, the ISRP plans to develop presentation

guidelines that outline the elements of an effective project presentation.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

4

In the Inter-Mountain, five minutes per presentation was the standard time allotment

for the presentation with another five to ten minutes for questions and answers. This

was too short for the subjects most of project sponsors had to cover. For each project,

10 minutes for presentation (the minimum time generally used) and 10 minutes for

questions might be about right.

In addition, the ISRP benefited from the opportunity to visit informally with project

sponsors who were not able to attend the tour.

c) Review Team Evaluation Meeting

On the last day of the workshop (September 15 for the Gorge and September 22 for

the Inter-Mountain), the ISRP peer review team met alone to share impressions of the

review, compare results with standard evaluation criteria, and reach consensus of the

full review team on project scores and comments. Findings from the review are

included in this preliminary report.

Background on Preliminary Recommendations

Preliminary recommendations are provided for each proposal. These recommendations

are split into three basic categories: 1) fundable, further ISRP response review is not

needed (16 projects); 2) fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP

concerns (36 projects); 3) do not fund, a response is not warranted (9 projects). One

project was not amenable to scientific review.

The “fundable only if” means that a project will not be recommended as fundable by the

ISRP without more information provided to address scientific concerns noted to date.

However, provision of more information does not necessarily mean a project will then be

recommended as fundable. It could be that the response will not adequately address

concerns

A summary score of level one, two, or three is given for each proposal based on the

original ISRP evaluations and information gained during site visits and oral presentations

(see Attachment 2). Level one refers to proposals that met the ISRP review criteria, are

judged to be potentially of significant benefit to fish and wildlife, and are acceptable as

written or can be easily modified to satisfy the criticisms of the ISRP. Level two refers to

proposals that are of potential benefit to fish and wildlife. Most of the proposals that

scored level two will require significant modification to satisfy criticisms of the ISRP.

Level three refers to proposals that are judged to be of limited value to fish and wildlife

or to proposals that need major rewriting, significant changes in goals, objectives and

tasks, etc. Some level three proposals contain important goals and objectives, which

should be addressed by the Province at this time, but the proposals are so poorly prepared

or prior results from ongoing projects are so lacking that preparation of a response

requires a significant rewrite. In these cases, a response to ISRP criticisms is invited, but

major improvements must be provided before the proposal can be recommended for
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

5

funding. The nine proposals that received “do not fund, a response is not warranted,”

received level three scores. The ISRP found that these proposals were either so deficient

that they did not warrant further review, or the ISRP concerns were so significant that the

proposals would need to be reworked to such an extent that the response proposal would

not cover the same objectives, tasks, and methods as the original proposal.

The level one, two, and three scores should not be used as a definitive rank of the

proposals. In preparation of responses project sponsors and CBFWA should focus on the

ISRP comments. Comments range from criticisms that should be responded to, and

which will receive further ISRP review to suggestions for improvement that generally do

not require a response.

The Next Step: ISRP Response Review and CBFWA Prioritization

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

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

ISRP’s technical comments provided in the report, answer any review questions, and

clarify any uncertain facts. Responses should be formatted to address each concern

raised by the ISRP point by point, clearly identifying the concern and providing a

response. The title and project number of the proposal at issue should be displayed

prominently on the front page of the response. In addition, the ISRP welcomes comments

on the “General Issues” described in the report that apply across projects and basins.

A hard copy and electronic copy on diskette of the response must be received at the

Northwest Power Planning Council no later than 5 p.m., October 27th.

Mail the response and diskette to:

Northwest Power Planning Council

Attention: Kendra Phillips

Response to ISRP

851 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1100

Portland, OR 97204

If you have any questions regarding the response process please contact Doug Marker at

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

email: dmarker@nwppc.org. For the ISRP’s Fiscal Year 2000 response review, see ISRP

99-4 on the Council’s website at www.nwppc.org/isrp_toc.htm.

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 on November

8th. For more details on the CBFWA process and province reviews in general see

www.cbfwf.org/province.htm.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

6

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 December

1, 2000.

The Final Step: Northwest Power Planning Council

Recommendations to the Bonneville Power Administration

Finally, based on the advice provided by CBFWA and the ISRP, the Council makes the

final selection of annual projects to be recommended for funding and transmits these

recommendations to Bonneville by early January 2001. If Council decisions differ

notably from recommendations of the ISRP, the basis of their decisions is to be

documented and included in the Council's final recommendations.

When a project is recommended to Bonneville for funding, the amount budgeted by the

Council for the project and the description of the project as recommended by the Council

becomes the starting point for Bonneville's contracting process. However, during the

course of the contracting process further information, such as a project management plan,

may be required to establish more specifically the work to be performed and the

reasonable cost of that work. The amount of funding ultimately approved by Bonneville

for a project may be greater or less than the amount initially budgeted by the Council in

its recommendations.

General Issues

During the review, the reviewers identified several issues that cut across the provinces

and projects. The ISRP as a whole has not had time to fully discuss these issues but will

explore them more fully in the December 1 report. The issues are included here to

initiate discussion and comment and to aid those in the Mountain Columbia who are

preparing material for the proposal review in their province.

1. Opportunities. Both subbasin summaries and proposals could benefit from further

emphasis on timely opportunities as well as limiting factors. For example, wildlife

habitat mitigation often depends on specific properties being on the market.

Proposals to specifically capitalize on such opportunities could be submitted. In the

aquatic arena, there may be timely opportunities to collaborate with other projects or

to monitor the results of other work (e.g., monitor the effects on fish populations in

Lake Roosevelt from strobe-light deterrence of entrainment).

2. Subbasin Summaries and Plans. The connection between proposals and subbasin

summaries and plans needs to be communicated more effectively. Only some

proposals made explicit reference to the descriptions or lists of priorities in

summaries/plans, and when they did, it was helpful to reviewers. This practice of

cross-referencing could be further used to great advantage for planning and

reviewing. Further, subbasin plans should become the leading documents in this
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

7

dialogue. They should not simply list needs and objectives that have been collected

from existing projects, but should establish goals and an agenda to which current and

future projects can respond.

3. Subbasin Planning Workshops. A workshop approach in the subbasin planning

effort could be of great benefit in improving understanding and communication, if not

in re-directing projects.

4. Proximate Limiting Factors. Most of the “limiting factors” for fisheries mentioned

by project personnel during the tour were human activities or human-generated

processes. Mining, logging, road building, overgrazing, agricultural land uses,

entrainment at dams, stream straightening, recreational development, and blockage of

fish movement by hydro-dams, often cropped up in the list. Seldom did the

proximate limiting factors, such as lack of woody debris (hiding/security cover), other

improper channel conformation, sedimentation, unfavorable water temperature, and

so on receive discussion, although the thermal/dissolved oxygen squeeze in lakes did

get a lot of attention. Many (perhaps most) of the project objectives are, except for

the matter of entrainment, not directed toward remedying these human and humaninduced problems. Instead, most of the money seems to be directed toward stocking

hatchery fish. That does nothing about causative problems. Indeed, it tends to mask

them. Perhaps also some of the habitat work is directed more toward manipulating

stream channels than toward removing the human actions (land use) that create the

unfavorable conditions. The wildlife projects may be dealing with human problems

more directly than the aquatic ones. A solid, ongoing educational effort about the

connection between land use and aquatic ecosystem health, starting with the children,

as the Lake Roosevelt Forum is doing, should pay off in a major way in the long run.

The aquatic managers would do well to put major effort into working with (securing

credibility with) private landowners and joining the educational programs.

5. Data Repository. Projects should identify their plans for when and how data will

become available for use beyond the project staff. In principle, all data obtained with

public funds should be available to the public. Generally accepted methods in the

basin are to use StreamNet or other database for permanent storage of both the data

and metadata. If there are restrictions on use of data (e.g., sensitive species locations,

provision of a specified time for investigators to prepare reports and manuscripts)

these should be specified and justified.

6. Adaptive Management. In general, and despite the frequent use of the term

"adaptive management" within proposals, much of the activity does not qualify.

Detailed process models are suggested for the most part in the monitoring and

evaluation components, rather than the required control and treatment in experiments.

A detailed process model approach is unlikely to effectively deal with temporal and

spatial variability and lead to useful information for adaptive management.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

8

7. Monitoring and Evaluation. Monitoring must incorporate a temporal and spatial

scale. Some detailed monitoring and evaluation at key sites (e.g., life stage survivals

in treated and untreated areas of experiments) should be complimented by data from

more extensive surveys. Where data was presented or referenced, current trends

suggest that many of the proposed projects (including some large-scale constructions)

have high risk of failure.

8. Stock Assessment Information. Currently, there appears to be a lack of stock

assessment and monitoring information to guide the work in anadromous fisheries

(requiring some years of information such as escapement, catch, fecundity, smolt

yield, age structure, survival during freshwater and marine life stages, etc.), and a

further lack of a coordinated process of watershed assessment, prescription,

rehabilitation, and monitoring/evaluation. Hatchery operations for harvest

management or for supplementation were confused, and not well justified nor

supported by data, which should be available. Even incidental harvest is unjustifiable

if the stock is below replacement levels based on stock assessment.

9. Buffering Wild Stocks With Hatchery Fish. Several proposals or HGMPs

expressed the common “buffering belief,” namely that stocking hatchery trout will

reduce harvest of wild trout in the same water body—perhaps through some process

of diluting fishing pressure. In no proposal was this idea substantiated with data from

either project M&E or outside studies. Indeed, on the tour one biologist related to us

a situation in which hatchery stocking created excessive harvest of wild kokanee. In

questioning about the buffering effect after his presentation on a hatchery project,

another biologist launched into an explanation of the process in which he laid out a

hypothetical situation, followed a logical sequence of reasoning from it, and came out

at the end with a result that described just the opposite of buffering. The idea that

stocking buffers the harvest of a non-stocked fish population may be one of those

common-sense ideas that can lead to self-deception among managers who hold it and

who with all good intentions try to apply it. Stocking to increase a water body’s fish

abundance should be expected to have a buffering effect (dilute fishing pressure and

reduce harvest of the pre-stocking population) only if angling pressure does not

increase in proportion to the increase in combined abundance of wild and hatchery

fish achieved by the stocking. If, on the other hand, stocking hatchery fish leads the

angling public to do much more fishing than they would otherwise have done on the

water body, the well-known effect of overharvesting weaker stocks in mixed-stock

fisheries may more likely take hold, thereby reducing the wild population more than

if the hatchery fish had not been introduced. A large body of literature exists on this.

Without solid evidence of buffering by stocking, it will be prudent to treat the idea as

a dangerous notion that can mislead managers, administrators, and the public—and

harm wild fish populations.

10. Density as a Limiting Factor. Related to the item above “buffering” is that density

limits in the Bonneville Pool and lower Columbia River need to be addressed in

subbasin summaries as a potential factor limiting salmon productivity. Without
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

9

appropriate assessment of stocks including survival in the pool and lower river, and

without consideration of density as a potential limiting factor, managers may

inappropriately increase smolt releases to the detriment of future cohorts of native

salmon. Reviewers note with concern that proposers in several programs contemplate

marked increase of hatchery production as a method of supplementation; the

detrimental effect of this increased density of salmon smolts on the survival of native

salmon has apparently not be considered.

11. Test Site for Supplementation. The Hood River may be a choice site for evaluation

of supplementation or as a key stock monitoring site for freshwater and marine

survival (smolt enumeration may require further support), because potentially every

immigrant fish can be monitored.

12. Trust Funds for Land and Water Acquisition. In general, the ISRP agrees that

purchasing land or water is a good process for recovery. Over the past few years we

have reviewed several projects that propose to establish a trust fund. Our concern

with many of these proposals has been the lack of specificity; consequently, the

proposals have not been amenable to scientific review. The ISRP recognizes that

there is a need to be able to take advantage of rapid purchase situations so that

valuable opportunities are not lost. The ISRP encourages the Council, BPA, and

CBFWA to consider mechanisms such as establishment of a central trust fund just for

such situations. The ISRP also recognizes there is an equity issue involved; e.g.

establishment of a trust in one subbasin may not represent a fair distribution of dollars

to best benefit fish and wildlife across the basin.

13. Grazing/Fencing Strategies. New strategies for alleviating the effects of grazing are

needed. Project personnel cited livestock grazing as a problem but told about no

other control measure than riparian fencing. Such “stream-parallel” fencing can be

very effective but costly, and as we were shown, soon fails without ongoing

maintenance. In many parts of the West, livestock grazing ranges and stream

mileages involved are so immense that building and maintaining fences along each

side of most stream-riparian corridors is infeasible. However, the destructiveness of

grazing to fish and wildlife habitat is greatly reduced by dividing the landscape into

huge pastures with fences that cross the streams rather than paralleling them, then

devising a grazing plan that is attuned to the needs of the livestock, the range, and the

rancher, while allowing the animals into the stream-containing pastures only at such

seasons and for such durations that the riparian vegetation and stream banks will be

grazed only lightly. Neither in the Intermountain Province project proposals nor in

the subbasin plans nor on the tour did we hear about such grazing plans. Is the FWP

giving due attention to the utility of livestock grazing plans, rather than just fencing?

14. Walleye. The projects need to address the existence of walleye populations. More

emphasis should be placed on understanding the role of walleye and the influence that

walleye will have on the aquatic community, fish stocking, and fisheries.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

10

15. Animal Care. Federal guidelines for animal care in experiments are specific. When

there are plans for use of animals experimentally, these guidelines should be

referenced and compliance ensured. Voluntary compliance would be better than

having lawsuits, as has happened in other areas of the life sciences.

16. Reporting of Results. Several projects failed to include recent results in their

proposals in spite of annual admonitions to do so. Ongoing projects must give clear

evidence of achievements and progress toward meeting goals. Where appropriate,

results should be illustrated with graphs or tables.

17. Out-year Obligations. The proposal review process does not give sufficient attention

to out-year costs. In some instances, a relatively small initial investment obligates

BPA to substantial long-term funding. Although costs are not strictly a responsibility

of the ISRP, the scientific/technical feasibility of some proposals depends on

assurance of continued funding.

18. Project Mislabeling. Some projects are poorly titled resulting in misperceptions of

approach and priorities by managers. This may lead to misdirection and reduced

effectiveness of management and to confusion among project personnel, the public,

and policy-makers. At least one of the projects labeled “hatchery,” the Colville Tribal

Hatchery (198503800), is really a much broader fishery management effort. It should

be labeled and fully recognized as such. It has production and stocking of hatchery

fish as the major component but includes other important aspects that have

implications broader than their bearing on production and use of hatchery fish. These

include creel census, gill-netting to determine relative abundance of fish stocks, food

habitat analyses, determining presence, distribution, and status of native bull,

redband, and cutthroat trout, and studying macrophytes, phytoplankton, and

zooplankton of lakes. Most of these non-production investigations fall under the

M&E effort. Also the presentation on the Spokane Tribal Hatchery project discussed

stream habitat restoration. Even within just the function of producing and stocking

the hatchery fish, it will be most effective in terms of resource management for all

parties involved to keep in mind that the effectiveness of the program lies mainly in

how the fish are used, not how they are produced. Therefore, fishery management per

se constitutes the project. Proper fishery management is what the personnel, the

public, and the policy-makers should be focused on, not the hatchery. Although a big

one, the hatchery is just one of the “tools” involved in achieving that management. It

should not be the project title.

19. Review by Submitting Organization. Review by sponsoring organizations is

essential to ensure high quality proposals. This review should cover project concept,

scientific and technical soundness, organization and logic of presentation, and writing

form—including grammar and spelling. It was apparent that several proposals had

not received adequate internal review. The extreme brevity of some proposals and

typos suggested that those proposals were prepared hastily and without much thought.

Some proposals were poor first drafts of the fill-in-the-blank variety. The negative

impressions on reviewers by such proposals are directed at both the proposer and the
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

11

authorizing organization. If the computer-style format is viewed as the problem, then

mechanisms are available for computer-driven documents to receive approval by an

authorizing person.

Reviewer Comments on Inter-Mountain Province Proposals

ProjectID: 21003

Upper Columbia Subbasin Native Rainbow Population Study

Sponsor: Washington Trout

Short Description:

Evaluate structure, dynamics, and long-term viability of selected rainbow populations in

Colville National Forest

Subbasin: Inter-Mountain

Comments:

Do not fund. Further ISRP response review is not warranted at this time. The idea is

good and warrants a revised proposal in future years. The experimental design is not

adequate for the objectives and the objectives are not focused on the key problems such

as assessing the status (both in population and genetic terms) of the species, variability in

their abundance among years, and habitat-related population variability. The proposal

identifies a potential problem (interaction of brook trout with rainbow trout leading to

reduced production of rainbow trout), but fails to address it, only to further study details

of it. Proposers might refer to Hearn's 1987 review of salmonid species interactions in

Fisheries 12(5):24-31. A stronger proposal with greater utility for U.S. Forest Service

resource managers (but not with tribal resource managers because of the perceived value

of brook trout there) would also be directed measures that could be taken to reduce the

interactions of brook trout with rainbow trout. Instead, the proposal is aimed at very

basic research such as studies of trout age structure, recruitment dynamics, hydrologic

conditions, and channel dynamics.

The main limitation with the study design (which may be unavoidable because of cost

considerations) is the fact that there is only a sample size of six as far as some of the

objectives of the study are concerned, and additionally those sites collectively are so

small that reviewers estimate that only about 1% of the trout population would be

sampled. As a result, one wonders what a significant difference between rainbow trout

populations with and without brook trout (Section IA) might mean, particularly as the

habitat conditions will confound comparisons and the criteria for selecting study streams

are not defined. Differences between populations will be present. The extent to which

these are meaningful in terms of the presence/absence of brook trout and other factors

will be a matter of judgement only, and there is a high risk of generating a distorted view

of abundance of various age groups. Reflecting the discussion during the Inter-Mountain

presentations, the study could be made more valuable by expanding its scope in terms of

treatment replications and examining more than just perceived optimal habitat types.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

12

The study populations should also be characterized genetically, if this has not already

been done. Also, it is important to know whether they are redband, rainbow, or a hybrid

swarm, because this will likely affect the management priority given to the population.

From the presentation, it seemed that some (but not all?) of the populations had already

been screened genetically.

The proposal's inclusion of assessing flyfishing as a population estimation technique was

not viewed favorably, because it is probably better to combine snorkeling with

electrofishing, giving consideration to the use of unpulsed DC.

ProjectID: 21006

Characterize and Assess Wildlife-Habitat Types and Stuctural Conditions for Sub-Basins

within the Inter Mountain Ecoprovince

Sponsor: NHI

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.

Subbasin: Inter-Mountain

Comments:

Fundable only if three conditions are met 1) a regional need by resource managers is

demonstrated and 2) the ground truth methods are presented in more detail, and 3) the

maps to be generated are specified as a deliverable to the funding agency rather than a

product that NHI may own and sell. Further, the ISRP questions whether objective 2

should be included. This might better be left to local resource managers to evaluate with

direct, primary local data. A response is needed that provides sufficient information

before the project could be recommended for funding.

Overall evaluation. The proposers appear competent for completion of the project. Except

for field testing, the proposal appears to provide adequate technical background and

justification, however it is not written for reviewers who are not expert in GIS. The

proposal does not refer to any subbasin plan objective, only asserts that "planning

requires a finer resolution of mapping than what [sic] currently exists", the objectives are

not measurable with respect to wildlife restoration. The proposal indicates that it would

build on previous work and emphasizes information transfer. However, the direct benefits

to fish and wildlife and relationship to other projects are not explained. The usefulness of

resulting maps to resource managers is not demonstrated, and resource managers in the

province have not been asked to support the project. Proposed methods for monitoring

and evaluation of the utility of the classification maps are lacking.

Specific comments and questions.

1. The field-based ground truth task is not presented in sufficient detail. Procedures for

defining strata, selection of random points within strata, and methods for dealing with

access problems should be presented. For example, will the number of random points

that could not be accessed in the field be reported? Will all 32 classes be ground truthed
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

13

in the field? What is the procedure for determining the number of random field points to

be visited in each class? What is the criterion and sample size to have an accuracy of 75%

on each class? Will the lower limit of a 95% confidence interval be required to be above

0.75? It was stated during the oral presentation that if the criteria are failed for some

class, then a completely new random sample of points from that class would be visited in

the field? We would like to see this commitment more clearly expressed in the proposal.

Will the field-testing be conducted blind, i.e., will field personnel not know the “office

classification” before they visit a random point in the field? What are the criteria for

identification of each of the 32 classes when the biologist is standing at a random point in

the field?

2. Are this proposal and its sister proposal in the Columbia Gorge Province the initial

proposals to map the entire Columbia Basin at this scale? Is there a Columbia Basin wide

need for vegetation maps at this scale? Will there be any cost savings to other provinces

if this proposal is funded? Perhaps a pilot project should be funded to demonstrate the

utility of the project.

3. The maps and resulting classifications should not be viewed as primary data. The

mapping project uses primary data from the current Landsat Thematic Mapper, but

classifications are derived and are subject to change in the future based on a different

procedure.

These comments and recommendations mirror those for the Gorge proposal, #21005.

ProjectID: 21032

Eastern Washington Survey for Townsend's big-eared bat

Sponsor: WDFW

Short Description:

This project will search and inspect all appropriate old cabins, barns, buildings for

Townsend's big-eared bats. It appears these rare bats prefer these older human structures

for maternity colonies. If found, efforts will be made to conserve these sites.

Subbasin: Inter-Mountain

Comments:

Do not fund. A response review is not warranted. The proposal failed to present evidence

of a scientifically sound approach that would lead to benefit to fish and wildlife. The

proposal does not adequately tie the work with the Fish and Wildlife Program and the

survey designs and sampling methods are not presented in adequate detail.

This proposal has the worthy objective of collecting critical information on a sensitive

species. The background, rationale, and objectives/tasks/methods are much too brief to

support meaningful scientific review. The proposal lacks linkages to the Columbia Basin

Fish and Wildlife Plan or to other projects within the Inter-Mountain Province. It

provides no explanation as to why the FWP is the appropriate funder for bat research.

Sampling methods are only minimally described. It is not clear how sites are to be

selected for surveys. There is not information on how many potential sites there might be,

whether it is possible to check all, or how a subset to be checked would be selected. In
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

14

addition to ad hoc and extensive searches for Townsend's big-eared bats, the proposal

should include a valid field sampling component. For example, it might be possible to

define a stratified random sample of blocks within towns and sections of land elsewhere

for intensive searches. The proposal also fails to present details on how data will be

analyzed. Similar concerns about sampling methods and analyses apply to the goal of

locating maternity roosts. Additionally, the project does not develop any rationale for

why old structures might be preferred as nesting sites: Is it because they are old? Because

of their location and degree of isolation? Their proximity to food or water? The lack of

an analytical approach to this subject significantly limits the utility of the findings.

ProjectID: 21023

Determine causes of mule deer population declines in the IM Columbia Basin: a test of

the "apparent competition " hypothesis

Sponsor: WSU

Short Description:

Determine if increasing white-tailed deer and resulting increased cougar predation are

responsible for mule deer population declines in the IM Columbia basin.

Subbasin: Inter-Mountain

Comments:

Fundable only if methods are better described and the regional support for this study in

relation to other mule deer studies, e.g. 21029, is better documented. A response is

needed.

This project proposes to add FWP funding to ongoing research on declines in mule deer

populations. The project would complement existing research by testing a specific

hypothesis on the causes of mule deer decline, which are of regional interest and

importance. The proposed study has the potential to be important in addressing a

reasonable but rarely considered hypothesis (that the population interaction between two

apparent competitors, in this case mule deer and white-tailed deer, is in fact caused by a

common predator, in this case cougars) and the proposal presents background data that

strongly suggest that apparent competition is occurring. However, the study design and

experimental methods are not clear in the proposal and should be better developed in a

revised proposal or addendum. The proposal specifies two study areas, and that each area

will contain a control and a treated site. The treated sites will have reduced white-tailed

deer densities but we do not know what the changes will be, or when these will be made.

Also, nothing is said about the effects (if any) of movement between the control and

treated sites which could remove the treatment over time. There are potential statistical

difficulties in the apparent design. For instance, the proposal implies that individuals will

be used as samples (replicates) and the assumption of their independence needs to be

justified, especially since the individuals to be studied will be drawn from what are

described as 2 sample areas of each experimental treatment. There will be differences

between control and treated areas irrespective of any treatment effects, so that the simple

t-test types of analysis that are mentioned may not be sufficient for testing for treatment

effects. Some sort of paired comparison analysis may be appropriate, but it is difficult to

know without being sure of what the experimental design entails. If animals are to be

considered independent samples, then the proposal should acknowledge that this involves
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

15

pseudo-replication and requires some justification. Also, they should randomly select the

two sites for ‘treatment’, i.e. white tail removal. It is stated that 50 adults and 50 fawns in

each of the four control and treated areas is a more than adequate number to test for

ecologically significant effects, with no justification for this statement and no indication

of what ecologically significant means. For survival differences it seems that these

sample sizes might be insufficient to get good power to detect important changes. With

cougars the sample size will be 10 in each of the four control and treated areas. This

sample size is said to be more than sufficient, and an unpublished report is referenced

(Katnik and Wielgus, 2000). Again, more details are needed to know whether a study

with these sample sizes has good power to detect the types of effects that are likely to

occur. Many other details of sample design and justification also need to be supplied:

What is the size of the treatment and control areas? How are they located relative to one

another? How will areas be assigned to treatments? What type of movement of predator

and prey occurs between adjacent treatment and control areas, and how will differences

in these rates of movement be tested for significance after the treatment is completed? Is

five years sufficient to test for predator and prey responses? Are habitat differences

controlled? Will the number of observations be sufficient to test the hypotheses? Also,

the details of how cougars are to be tracked until two kills are not clear: how are

individuals chosen for tracking? How are they followed? How successful is the

technique, on average? Are the procedures free of sampling bias?

The proposal should include assurance that animal care and use guidelines will be

followed.

ProjectID: 21029

A cooperative approach to identifying the role of forage quality in affecting physical

condition....of mule deer in north central Washington.

Sponsor: WDFW

Short Description:

We are proposing a cooperative, five-year research investigation involving the WDFW,

the lead agency, and Washington State University (WSU), a collaborating agency, to

assess the role of habitat in maintaining mule deer numbers.

Subbasin: Inter-Mountain

Comments:

Fundable, but only if the response provides more details on field methods and sources

and uses of other funding. These should be clearly specified or summarized and

references cited.

This proposal presents good scientific background and justification for the work, relating

it well to the sub-basin plans and the FWP. The project should have good long-term

benefits for mule deer. The project has good information transfer plans, in particular the

synthesis of project findings into prescriptions for mule deer management plans, and the

two PIs doing the lab work have produced many widely-cited and widely–applied

publications. The work is likely to be done well as evidence by the investigators’

previous work. This project complements an ongoing cooperative project being
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

16

conducted outside FWP funding, though the proposal is short on detail about the

cooperative project.

The response should clearly identify the distinctions and complementarity between it and

21023. There are apparent overlaps in both project scope and some tasks. For instance,

Task 3 of Objective 4 apparently includes project 21023. Will the sample areas be the

same? Are there possibilities for the two projects to produce synergistic results?

More information on sample design should be presented, in particular the spatial

sampling scheme (e.g., where are sample sites located and how are they chosen for

study?) and statistical justification for the sample size. There is no justification for any

sample sizes such as would normally be required on a study involving human patients. In

some cases sample sizes are not even mentioned (e.g., for estimating the survival rates of

radio-marked deer. What evidence is there that the sample sizes are sufficient to meet the

objectives of the study? A sampling plan for collecting fecal pellets and forage samples

should be presented and justified.

More detail on statistical analysis should be presented for each task. Additionally, it is

stated that analysis of variance and analysis of covariance will be used for analyzing the

feeding trials. Growth data may need some special treatment here rather than what is in

the standard statistical packages.

The proposal should include assurance that animal care and use guidelines will be

followed.

ProjectID: 21025

Intermountain Province Resident Fish Symposium

Sponsor: LRF

Short Description:

The Lake Roosevelt Forum will develop, coordinate, promote and convene an annual

three-day symposium dealing with resident fish programs and related research within the

Intermountain Province, with particular emphasis on the Lake Roosevelt Subbasin.

Subbasin: Inter-Mountain

Comments:

Fundable. No further ISRP response review is needed. This well-written proposal

deserves strong support. It presents a compelling argument for the benefits of an annual

symposium to provide evaluation and information exchange on resident fish research.

The proposal makes clear linkages to the FWP. The annual symposium would be a

valuable contribution to the fisheries program in the Inter-Mountain Province and would

produce lasting benefits for a relatively low budget. Based on the ISRP’s site visit,

fisheries management and research in the Inter-Mountain Province appears to lag behind

the standard of quality exhibited in the province’s wildlife management and research

program. The resident fish symposium proposed by the Lake Roosevelt Forum could be

an important organizing and energizing event for the province’s fisheries program.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

17

The symposium in itself provides one means to monitor research progress and

connectedness in the Subbasin; in addition the Lake Roosevelt Forum will monitor and

evaluate the effectiveness of its own approach. Plans to bring in outside experts as

keynote speakers and plans to produce symposium proceedings (hopefully peerreviewed), are particularly commendable. The annual symposium may be most effective

by inviting presentations and other participation by outside experts with regard to such

pertinent overarching subjects as restoration ecology and management, relationships of

fish and wildlife restoration to human activities and attitudes. If funded, CBFWA should

strongly encourage attendance and active participation (presentation or taking part in

discussions) by all professional personnel involved in the Inter-Mountain program.

Finally, we suggest that a one or two day ‘continuing education’ short course be a part of

the annual symposium. For example, a short course on statistical sampling procedures

with emphasis on vegetation sampling would be valuable in all of the terrestrial projects.

Capture/recapture methods for estimation of population size would be valuable for both

the aquatic and terrestrial projects.

The proposal itself, and the previous accomplishments of the Lake Roosevelt Forum,

reflect the competence and vision of the Forum’s staff. Mr. Dunau and Ms. Squier have

extensive experience developing educational events that include public outreach, thus

ensuring the success of this project.

ProjectID: 21034

Colville Tribes Restore Habitat for Sharp-tailed Grouse

Sponsor: CCT-FWD

Short Description:

Conduct a population viability analysis for a comprehensive, adaptive management plan

to restore critical shrub-steppe and riparian deciduous habitat to secure a viable

metapopulation of sharp-tailed grouse on the Intermountain Province region.

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt, Lake Rufus Woods, San Poil

Comments:

Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. Although the

proposal ranks high on most counts, more detail should be provided on sampling design,

on specific research methods, and on data analysis. The Panel was impressed with and

enthusiastic about the opportunity of this project to significantly extend understanding of

sharp-tailed grouse ecology and to provide direct benefit to both grouse and other species

associated with its habitat. The Panel believes that the omissions of detail in methods that

are in the original proposal can be addressed effectively in a proposal revision or

addendum.

This proposal takes advantage of the presence of a stable local population of sharp-tailed

grouse, a rarity and well worth protection and study in the interest of supporting other

such populations. The proposal presents a reasonable case for restoring grouse habitat but

fails to provide sufficient detail as to how the project will be conducted. The sampling

and analytical methods are described in general terms, but without specific information
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

18

on sample design, types of analysis to be done, or the rationale for choosing particular

types of analysis. The analysis is given too little attention. The proposal is weak in

explaining how the data are going to be used to obtain the objectives, and $16k per year

may not be enough for that. The proposal is vague about analyses to be used. Cluster

analysis is mentioned, as are several computer programs, but it is not clear how these will

provide a predictive management model, and no relevant references are provided. It may

be that this project needs more funding for analysis, including the development of a

specific simulation model, and less money for data collection. The investigators may

want to involve someone with more experience in development and analysis of

population models as an advisor or subcontractor.

ProjectID: 21035

Phalon Lake Native Redband Rainbow trout Trap Construction and O & M

Sponsor: WDFW

Short Description:

Construct and operate a pumped water trapping facility to capture and spawn a laocally

adapted, indigenous stock of redband rainbow trout for subsequent use in the subbasin.

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt

Comments:

Do not fund, based on present proposal. Further ISRP response review is not warranted.

Good and fundable idea; poor and non-fundable proposal. The proposal fails to provide a

scientifically sound concept.

The proposal and oral presentation were poor. They were disorganized and created

confusion about what is asked for. The writing was careless. However, the panel

believes the trap construction is important for the use of native stocks and that the

broodstock in Phalon Lake represent a good start toward developing appropriate hatchery

products.

This project’s immediate objective is a purely technical activity. The broader, underlying

reasons for it are properly expressed in the abstract’s second paragraph. The overall

procedure should be clearly and concisely spelled out, however—the capture of native

fish from their home waters, holding them in Phalon Lake, keeping them separate (or

identifiable as to origin), trapping them, spawning them, rearing them, stocking them, and

so on. In other words, the relationship to other projects is poorly described both in the

front-end listing and in the narrative, especially for a set of projects that is supposed to be

so intricately linked. The flow of fish among projects is not well described.

The proposal background was short and weak. The stated objectives are really tasks,

though they are understandable. The proposal does not provide evidence that this type of

trap works under exactly the same conditions (pumped flow). When questioned after his

presentation, the PI mentioned examples, but they differed from the planned trap. In later

solicitations, a revised proposal with clear and focused justification, objectives, work to

be done, etc. with review by WDFW would be welcome.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

19

The underlying objective of this proposal, which is to replace hatchery rainbow trout

released into Lake Roosevelt subbasin waters with native redband trout stocks, is

commendable and supported strongly in the resident fish portion of the FWP. The ISRP

also supports this goal. Replacing coastal rainbow trout hatchery stock with hatchery

stocks derived from native redbands—if properly done—would alleviate our concerns

about stocking non-native trout in the province. Those concerns are rooted in the

insidious effects of hybridization on indigenous stocks.

The proposal suggests that the major reason to use the native stock is that it is less likely

to entrain through Grand Coulee Dam than the present hatchery stock. This objective

should be testable and is relevant to the difficult fisheries management situation in the

hyper-dynamic Lake Roosevelt. Nevertheless, the more relevant longer-term reason to

do the proposed work is to replace the non-native stock presently used in the hatchery

program(s) with native stocks. There is a significant and rich literature that addresses the

effects of hybridization on native stocks that should be described and referenced in the

proposal more thoroughly. The proposal would benefit from significant development of

the objectives, tasks, and methods sections, with particular emphasis on a monitoring and

evaluation component in order to assess the success of the project.

With regard to the problem assumed in the proposal that genetic contamination of

downstream stocks of rainbow trout might result from entrainment of the present

hatchery strain now used as the main source of net pen-reared rainbows for Lake

Roosevelt, we question whether this approach would really solve the supposed problem.

Two elements are of significance: the propensity for downstream movement of nativederived stocks and the genetic implications, if any. Regarding downstream movement,

the proposal states the Phalon Lake stock “may be less likely” to migrate downstream. In

other words, it is unknown whether their tendency toward downstream movement is any

less than in the present hatchery strain. And with respect to genetic implications, the

proposal does not discuss what, if any genetic implications there might be if the “Phalon

Lake stock” were to contaminate downstream stocks—which some of them are certain to

do via entrainment. The proposal does not convince that a real problem exists, or that if it

does, the method proposed will deal with it effectively.

With respect to trap design (item g), what alternatives were considered? Why was this

the most advantageous type? How many cubic feet per second of water will be pumped,

and what is the evidence that this amount will attract fish sufficiently and be

economically justifiable?

The proposal contains unsubstantiated statements, for example (italics added):

(1) In item a: “Current and future augmentation of redbands in this subbasin will ensure

their persistence.” The sponsor could balance this thought with consideration of genetic

corruption via artificial propagation such that the target population dwindles or, when

stocking eventually ends, perhaps even cannot persist.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

20

(2) In item c: “use of hatcheries will be critical to the success of providing subsistence

and recreational resources and conservation of native species.” Just saying so doesn’t

make it so. And again, what of the potential harm to native species through use of

hatcheries?

(3) In item e: “Broodstock replacements were and continue to be taken from the wild

each year so that the genetic make-up is not compromised.” It would be naïve to believe

that this absolutely ensures that genetic make-up will not be compromised, and such

should not be implied. Exactly what is the genetics-based plan for replenishing the

Phalon Lake broodstock(s)?

(4) Also in item e: “Fourty-one [sic] percent of fish caught were hatchery produced wild

fish.” How was 41% determined, and by whom? A reference seems to be missing. And

if the fish were produced in a hatchery, then they couldn’t have been wild. Hatcheryreared fish from a native strain or words to that effect would be more accurate.

(5) In item f, under objectives: “The ultimate goal of this proposal is to produce a

facility...” This expresses the immediate goal. The ultimate goal was stated in the

abstract.

(6) At end of the next paragraph: “Tributary use of these fish will be dependent on the

progress of inventory and enhancement efforts.” What is meant by “enhancement”? If

stream habitat restoration is meant, then part of the sentence makes sense, but why would

the fish care whether an inventory has been conducted before they decide to use a

tributary?

Apparently to try to support the broad objective and such statements as 1, 2, and 3

(above), the sponsor provides a reference list (item h) of just two articles, neither of

which, however, is referenced in the text. The first of these (Anders 1998) pertains to

conservation hatcheries, not to the proposed operation’s purpose of using the target stock

for “recreational and subsistence fisheries,” which makes it a harvest augmentation

project (of the “supplementation” sort?) rather than a conservation project. The sponsor

draws on nothing from the major book on the subject by Ryman and Utter (1987) and

fails to include consideration of the large literature pertaining to reduced fitness caused

by artificial propagation of fish, even when that propagation is intended to augment wild

populations, e.g., Reisenbichler and Rubin (1999), Peery and Bjornn (1993), and Fleming

et al. (1996).

In the questioning after his oral presentation, the PI revealed that some of the hatchery

fish produced from Phalon Lake broodstock, originally collected from the Kettle River,

are being stocked back into the Kettle River. He indicated that this is done to bolster the

Kettle River native redband population which is severely diminished because WDFW

angling regulations until recently led to overharvest. However, if the changed angling

regulations are properly protecting the trout, and the river’s habitat is suitable for the fish

(as it appeared to be during our bus tour, and we weren’t told otherwise), then the natural
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

21

trout population should recover on its own. Augmentation stocking should not be

needed—and indeed could be harmful. Besides the probable needlessness of the stocking,

the possibilities should be considered that stocking will stimulate continued excessive

harvest, and that stocking fish reared even for just one generation in the hatchery will

decrease the reproductive fitness of the wild population into which they are mixed, hence

actually depress trout abundance. See Reisenbichler and Rubin (1999) concerning the

latter process.

References:

Anders, P. J. 1998. Conservation aquaculture and endangered species: can objective

science prevail over risk anxiety? Fisheries 23 (11):28-31.

Fleming, I. A., B. Jonsson, M. R. Gross, and A. Lemberg. 1996. An experimental study

of the reproductive behavior and success of farmed and wild Atlantic salmon. Journal of

Applied Ecology 33. (“The results of this study agree with other evidence that suggests

captive breeding and artificial culture reduce natural productive ability of fish.”)

Peery, C. A., and T. C. Bjornn. 1993. Ecological effects of spring-reared spring chinook

salmon on naturally produced chinook salmon. Idaho Supplementation Studies Annual

Report, 1991-1992. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Ore. (“Thus, it is

possible that a hatchery supplementation program may inadvertently replace the target

natural population with a population having a lower survival and reproductive potential.”)

Reisenbichler, R. R., and S. P. Rubin. 1999. Genetic changes from artificial propagation

of Pacific salmon affect the productivity and viability of supplemented populations. ICES

Journal of Marine Science 56:459-466. (“When the published studies and three studies in

progress are considered collectively. . .they provide strong evidence that the fitness for

natural spawning and rearing can be rapidly and substantially reduced by artificial

propagation.”)

Ryman, N., and F. Utter. 1987. Population genetics and fishery management.

University of Washington Press, Seattle.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

22

ProjectID: 199502700

Develop and Implement Recovery Plan for Depressed Lake Roosevelt White Sturgeon

Populations.

Sponsor: STOI

Short Description:

Current population of a few hundred mature fish are unable to recruit YOY into reservoir.

Recruitment is limited by hydropower development, and possible predation of eggs and

larvae, and pollution. Investigate limitations and develop mitigative actions.

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt

Comments:

Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. This generally

persuasive project is a mix of recovery plan preparation and data collection, but is weak

on methods for data collection. Delay the field work until the research plan is fully

developed and reviewed by an independent review group familiar with sturgeon biology

in the Columbia River basin (not necessarily the ISRP).

Overall Comments:

This is a project for assessment of lake sturgeon populations in Lake Roosevelt,

developing a plan for improving recruitment of juveniles to the population (which is

dwindling), and initial sampling primarily to identify spawning and presumed nursery

sites. Other relevant sampling is also proposed broadly. The goal is to develop a

mitigation recovery plan. This project was approved but not funded since 1995, although

funding was initiated in August 2000.

The proposal demonstrates a clear problem with sturgeon in the reservoir. The oncebroad-ranging species has a population isolated in Lake Roosevelt, there are no signs of

successful recruitment in the past several decades in spite of some indications of

successful spawning in Canada, and remaining sturgeon adults are underfed. The

proposal adequately describes the technical background and significance of this situation,

although more specific results from Canadian researchers and those on the Kootenai

River would have been helpful. The relationship of this project to others is clear. The

proposal relates the work to the FWP and the Upper Columbia Blocked Area Mgmt. Plan.

The work is linked to other Lake Roosevelt work (especially the monitoring program),

and to other white sturgeon work in the Basin. The objectives and tasks are clear, and

there are apparently good facilities and equipment for doing the work. Personnel may,

however, be stretched thin with other monitoring activities. Overall costs are shared by

collaboration with the British Columbia Ministry of Environment. All consistency criteria

were met.

A strong case is made for conservation of this white sturgeon stock. Continued viability

of the white sturgeon population above Grand Coulee Dam and below Canadian Treaty

dams is tenuous. Presently, we have no or very little knowledge of the biological and

physical factors affecting white sturgeon abundance, population dynamics of the white

sturgeon, and when and where they may spawn. All of this information is essential for

formulating a biologically sound restoration program. This project proposes to obtain the
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

23

above information in a scientifically sound manner. The project is tied to restoration and

recovery and not strictly enhancement of a native species.

It is not clear that recruitment is the only weak link, as there is not good feeding by

remaining fish in the reservoir (as shown by low condition factor). Successful recovery

of the population with mitigation aimed at improving juvenile recruitment is questionable

without attention to the full life cycle. At a broader level, the managers should evaluate

the relative merits of saving this isolated stock and its alternative, species substitution

(active program).

A critical element missing from this proposal, however, is detail on sampling plans to be

included for most of the factors that relate directly to the life history of the sturgeon

themselves. For example, under the objective “Identify and define potential for white

sturgeon spawning between Grand Coulee Dam and the international border”, on page 6

of the proposal, there is a statement indicating that numerous potentially suitable

spawning sites have been identified. It then appears that the primary thrust of the

proposal at hand is to confirm (or not) the use of these sites by sturgeon by placing

artificial substrates downstream of those locations and examining them for eggs that may

have drifted onto them. There is no indication of the reaches of the river that are freeflowing (during the tour it was not made clear whether the reservoir extends into

Canada). There is no description of the size of substrate mats intended to be used nor of

their number. The reviewer is left to assume that project leaders will design a sampling

survey that will produce convincing results. Our previous experience in reviewing project

proposals makes us unwilling to make that assumption. Surveys on the Kootenai River

should provide useful guidance. On the other hand, the sampling methods proposed for

evaluating physical attributes of the habitat are described in sufficient detail to satisfy

review. A question arises with respect to the plan to assess available food for white

sturgeon. The proposal states that benthic invertebrates are important for juvenile

sturgeon, and that their density and distribution will be assessed. Again, the reviewer is

left to assume that the investigators will design a sampling protocol that will

convincingly describe local variations in abundance of food for sturgeon. With respect to

sub-adult and adult sturgeon, the proposal emphasizes distribution of food items, without

mention of density or other abundance measures, until late in the paragraph where it is

stated that density and distribution of major food items will be plotted as an individual

GIS layer on a bathymetric map of Lake Roosevelt. Are we to assume then that densities

of fish species that constitute the diet of larger sturgeon will be included? To accomplish

this task will require a well-designed, statistically valid sampling survey. There is no

description of such a survey. Abundance of food is very likely to prove to be a limiting

factor to sturgeon populations, while distribution of food will be of secondary importance

(sturgeon may move to abundant food supplies). Factors involved in limiting abundance

are described in the Lake Roosevelt Subbasin Summary.

We recommend consideration of a three-part sequence for a three-year project. A revised

proposal for the response review might simply provide more details on study methods.

Alternatively, the revision could indicate that priority attention would be given to

additional assessment (based on available knowledge in this subbasin and elsewhere, and
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

24

from research conducted with the initial funding) and further development of a detailed

research program to guide a recovery plan. Over the three-year duration of the project,

more assessment could be accomplished, plans for the research could be further refined

and be given detailed peer review by colleagues knowledgeable about sturgeon biology,

and then field studies beyond those already part of the project and the Lake Roosevelt

monitoring program could be conducted (probably in the second year). The recovery

plan could be drafted at the end of the research period, depending on results. It is likely,

however, that more than 3 years of study effort will be required. A response should

demonstrate examples of more detailed study plans.

ProjectID: 198503800

Colville Tribal Fish Hatchery

Sponsor: CCT

Short Description:

Produce 22,679 kg (50,000 lbs ) of resident salmonids for distribution to reservation

waters in an effort to provide a successful subsistence/ recreational fishery as partial

mitigation for anadromous fish losses above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams.

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt, Lake Rufus Woods

Comments:

Fundable, this very good proposal reflects considerable effort and responds to past ISRP

comments on the need for native stocks and M&E. Further ISRP response review is not

needed. Hatchery production is now less than half the budget. They need better records

of return of creel to justify the economics. The project could use a review by economists

to potentially improve the economic return. The broad picture of relationships among the

basin’s hatcheries, net pens and reservoir fish is not very clear.

The Colville Tribal Hatchery successfully produces resident salmonids to mitigate for

anadromous fish losses from Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph dams by stocking

reservation lakes and streams. The technical and scientific background for the mitigation

is clearly defined. The scientific rationale for stocking coastal rainbow trout, eastern

brook trout, and some Lahontan cutthroat trout is clearly defined as largely a put-growand-take fishery for tribal members and some non-members. It is active management for

a consumptive fishery using non-natives where they fit the habitat. The project has

responded well to previous ISRP reviews and has oriented less to production and more to

native stocks, evaluation of ecosystems before planting, and compliance with the

Council’s artificial production guidelines. It reflects both conscientious hatchery

production and a change in scope to hatchery/wild comparisons and native salmonids

consistent with past ISRP reviews. The presentation of data was appreciated. There is an

excellent reference list (despite some editorial glitches) and informative resumes.

However, limnological data suggest poor summer conditions for salmonids in some

lakes, which may limit successful stocking. We anticipate further adaptation of the

program to match species stocked to the habitats of the lakes as these results are

integrated.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

25

This is largely a stand-alone project, but reflects interactions. It seems well developed

and coordinated with the subbasin scheme. The proposal provided a good project history

and relevant data. There are clearly defined and measurable objectives that relate directly

to the fisheries of the stocked waters. Methods are appropriate and well described. The

project includes good monitoring and consistent evaluation. However, the HGMP looks

incomplete. Monitoring ensures that the lakes are not overstocked, that the hatchery

produces what people want to catch, and that the lakes and streams are appropriate for the

fish species (but see above). Facilities seem adequate for the work. Information seems

adequately transferred. Within the objective of perpetually providing consumptive

fisheries that match the people’s desires and the available aquatic systems, there is a

persistent benefit to fisheries. There seem to be no adverse effects on other species. The

project meets all consistency criteria.

The proposal enlarges upon the objective to specify a catch per unit of effort to be

achieved in the fishery created by the fish that are planted. Further thought needs to be

given to specification of this objective. It needs to be recognized that the catch per effort

experienced in any fishery is a function of both the number of fish in the population and

the total number of fishermen participating in the fishery (in this context or total effort in

a general context). There is no suggestion in the proposal or elsewhere that the number of

fishermen might be restricted in some way. It appears to be assumed that it will remain

constant. However, it is well established that fishermen will regulate their effort to the

expected catch per effort. Therefore, the fishery resulting from these planted fish will

probably reach an equilibrium with a catch per effort value that satisfies the fishermen

rather than one that satisfies the hatchery manager or planner. The end result might be

that the planner is continually under pressure to provide more fish as the fishing effort

mounts. The text should at least discuss this issue.

Economics warrants further evaluation by others beyond the ISRP (IEAB?). The budget

doubled over forecast due to prior ISRP review such that the M&E budget is now greater

that the O&M budget. By our calculations, $395,000/yr is spent for 49,000 fish stocked,

= $8/lb. One might question whether this is good value and whether examination of

some of the details of the project could make the return more beneficial economically.

ProjectID: 199104600

Spokane Tribal Hatchery (Galbraith Springs) Operation and Maintenance

Sponsor: STOI

Short Description:

Operate and maintain the Spokane Tribal Hatchery to aid in the restoration and

enhancement of the Lake Roosevelt and Banks Lake fisheries.

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt

Comments:

Fundable. Further ISRP response review is not needed. This is a well-written proposal in

nearly every respect. It mentions an important Lake Roosevelt Hatcheries/Fisheries

Coordination Team, which was not emphasized in the subbasin summary. Background

was excellent, and the map was much appreciated. The rationale is excellent. The
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

26

collaborative aspect with other projects is well presented. Information transfer is

specially noted. Objectives are more like tasks, but ok. The project is important for fish.

It meets the consistency criteria.

This proposal provides a useful umbrella-like summary of the Lake Roosevelt Subbasin

goals and objectives and how each of 8 projects fits into the big picture, (a) Galbraith

Springs (this proposal), the Sherman Creek Hatchery, and net pen rearing of fish in Lake

Roosevelt, (b) Lake Roosevelt Evaluation, (c) Lake Roosevelt Habitat and passage

improvement, (d) Chief Joseph Enhancement Project, (e) Phalon Lake Wild Rainbow, (f)

Ford Hatchery, (g) Banks Lake Monitoring and Evaluation, and (h) Resident Fish Stock

Status Above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams.

The project needs to integrate results from M&E project to evaluate its own success (as

previously implied in the last one of the FY00 ISRP comments). The project seems to

depend too much on M&E from the LRFEP; it should get data from LRFEP, apply it in

adaptive management, and show how it is doing this. A summary of results, from an

annual report, ought to be part of the proposal. Scientific soundness depends on the data

produced. Cost-effectiveness of hatchery operation should be assessed via data on rate of

return to the creel.

Some statements would be improved if supported by references, e.g., on p. 6, last

paragraph last sentence: “This technique is used in British Columbia where naturally

producing kokanee are supplements with artificial production.” Where can we read about

that—and its results? Same problem at end of first paragraph on p. 8.

In kokanee and rainbow trout HGMPs’ sections 2.3, the claim is made that “Lake

Roosevelt fisheries specifically benefits [sic] from this program by increased harvest and

alleviation of fishing pressure on limited naturally producing populations” (emphasis

added). Are there data to substantiate such “alleviation”? Might not the opposite be

occurring via the effect that stocking can have in stimulating overharvest of less

numerous natural stocks in mixed-stock situations?

Should kokanee HGMP section 2.5 cover the interactions of stocked kokanee with

naturally-reproducing kokanee?

Rainbow trout HGMP section 2.4, paragraph 8 pertains only to kokanee, therefore does

not belong in this HGMP. The paragraph is identical to one in the kokanee HGMP.

Indeed, the whole section 2.4 are the same in both HGMPs—as are some other sections

and paragraphs. Much of the boilerplating is probably unwarranted.

Question: Has the staff contemplated whether the hatchery will be needed forever,

especially if the entrainment deterrent system works at the dam?

Question: Is it mostly shoreline spawning of kokanee that is affected by drawdowns or

are the tributaries also affected? (see bottom of p. 3).
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

27

ProjectID: 199404300

Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program

Sponsor: STOI

Short Description:

Monitor and evaluate the performance of hatchery fish. Develop and maintain a model

able to predict the effects of hydro-operations and management actions on the lake

ecosystem and fishery. Use model results to refine a fisheries management plans.

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt, Lake Rufus Woods

Comments:

Fundable only if a response is provided that shows the results of past efforts and

addresses the other ISRP concerns described below. The proposal is not scientifically

sound without description of past efforts and their success or failure. What have the

project leaders learned? They should show analyzed data in the project history section of

the proposal to document their progress and competence. The ISRP has commented on

the lack of data in the past and again data presentation was lacking in this proposal and

the presentation. If the PIs cannot show and synthesize the results, a different contractor

should do the evaluation. The project needs consultation and oversight. The PIs do make

recommendations for management actions, but the basis of the their recommendations

need to be better substantiated. A senior biometrician should supervise data collection

design and data analysis. The project has gathered data for 12 years so they should at

least be able to show stock status. Results from this project should be integrated with the

other projects to be useful. Too much emphasis on models takes away from producing

descriptive data analyses intermediate in the process, yet these data are critical to

operation of the many projects for which monitoring and evaluation data are provided.

This project conducts the overall monitoring and evaluation of Lake Roosevelt

limnology, aquatic ecosystem, fish, and fisheries, which is used as a basis for measuring

success of several other projects, especially hatcheries. It is a core project of the subbasin

with high regional significance.

The technical and scientific background is adequate but could benefit from more explicit

use of the scientific literature on reservoirs as unique aquatic environments. Although the

PI said in oral presentation that there is little conceptual literature on reservoirs, there

actually is quite a lot (for example papers by Kimmell, Thornton and others, and

management experiences with other storage reservoirs with deep drawdowns such as in

the TVA system, as well as many papers in the journal Regulated Rivers). The project

could benefit from additional outside assistance from reservoir managers who have dealt

with large reservoirs with deep drawdowns. Synthesis of information through use of a

model for reservoir hydraulics and water quality is a good idea as a conceptual

foundation, but its use could be improved with outside consultation. A description of the

model would have been helpful. The relationship to other projects is clear, but might

have been described in more detail. The project history is informative but lacks specific

project results (as requested last year by the ISRP). The project has developed over the

years, embodies a comprehensive and appropriately basic approach, and has resulted in
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

28

improved management. The project personnel obviously continue to work toward

improving the work plan. The objectives are clear, and the tasks and methods are

appropriate and related to objectives (a problem noted last year). We appreciate the

difficulty of focusing on specific tasks in a system so large and hydraulically complex.

The objective of affecting hydro operations because of fishery objectives in the reservoir

is probably unrealistic when taken in a regional perspective. Lower river managers

expect Lake Roosevelt to provide water when needed. The project would be more

realistically scoped in the context of managing fisheries in an unstable and non-natural

environment. Having more modest expectations for the usefulness of the model for

obtaining specific results is essential, although the model is a useful conceptual guide and

synthesis tool. The establishment of an ecosystem model for Lake Roosevelt is a laudable

goal, but will it be able to capture the unique features of this system and truly be useful as

a fisheries management tool?

Facilities and personnel are adequately described but may not be adequate for the goal of

managing fisheries in such a large and complex system. Collaborative use of personnel

from other projects is important for mounting large field operations. Additional use of

outside consultants, including a senior biometrician, could bolster the professional

capabilities.

The project is represented as adequately transferring its information to other projects for

their M&E needs, but no data were presented in the proposal and little data appeared in

the other proposals to illustrate or substantiate this. The project should have a large and

important benefit for fish and fisheries of Lake Roosevelt. There are likely benefits to

non-target species and habitats from increasing general understanding of the system. All

consistency criteria are met.

The proposal is informative but contains parts that lead to concern. One example: on

narrative p. 6, paragraph 2, is it really meant that “all kokanee with an adipose fin clip”

(i.e., those from the hatchery) are to be excluded from harvest, or should it be that all

unclipped kokanee are to be excluded from harvest?

The project has budgeted $40K per year for "writing studies for the public in professional

journals.” We applaud publication, but wonder if the expectation of $40k/year worth is a

realistic target. There is no publication yet from the project but one has been submitted.

A major concern is that the project is behind schedule for both modeling and data

collection (p11) but there is no indication of how extra money will allow catch-up. Both

the proposal and the oral presentations caused us to wonder if staff is adequate to handle

the statistical analysis and modeling aspects of the project. Outside consultation by a

senior statistician and a trained modeler could be helpful.

Another project is proposing evaluation of strobe lights as an entrainment deterrent at

Grand Coulee Dam. There was no mention of whether this monitoring project is gearing

up to be able to detect differences in kokanee population dynamics in the reservoir when

(if?) strobe lights are successful at reducing entrainment. If that technology works, it
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

29

could mean a big change in the way several hatchery and net pen projects are operated.

Monitoring the reservoir for effects of reduced entrainment should be a major objective

of this project.

ProjectID: 199104700

Sherman Creek Hatchery Operations and Maintenance

Sponsor: WDFW

Short Description:

Operate and maintain Sherman Creek Hatchery (SCH) and the Lake Roosevelt Kokanee

Net Pens to aid in the restoration and enhancement of the Lake Roosevelt and Banks

Lake Fisheries. SCH is a key component of the Lake Roosevelt Fishery Enhancement

Project.

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt

Comments:

Fundable. Further ISRP response review is not needed. The move toward using native

stocks is commendable and should continue. This project is well integrated with the

other Lake Roosevelt Hatchery projects. They should present results from the M&E

project, 199404300, to support their own operation.

The three HGMPs are thorough but perhaps are inappropriately boilerplated in parts.

Section 2.3.1 of all the HGMPs alludes to the idea of “alleviation of fishing pressure in

limited naturally reproducing populations.” Is this fact or myth? References to studies

supporting (and/or failing to support and/or refuting) this idea should be cited.

ProjectID: 199500900

Rainbow Trout Net Pen Rearing Project

Sponsor: LRDA

Short Description:

Operate and maintain the net pen program to aid in the enhancement and restoration of

the Lake Roosevelt fisheries.

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt

Comments:

Fundable. No further ISRP review is needed. Good use of volunteers. This very effective

project operates and maintains net pens at several locations throughout Lake Roosevelt to

provide final rearing for the output of several province hatcheries. Fish are released to

the lake to support recreational fisheries. The project is conducted largely by volunteers

with BPA financial support for coordination and maintenance of facilities. There appears

to be excellent organization and enthusiasm. It is a highly visible and popular program.

There is a clearly identified problem in sustaining a reservoir fishery in the face of large

amount of entrainment of fish through Grand Coulee Dam and lack of spawning habitat.

The rationale and significance are well described. There are good relationships with

other projects. In fact, the net pens are integral (and final) to the interlocking sequence of

fish movements between adult capture, hatching, rearing, and release that involve other
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

30

multiple facilities and a planning committee (the oral presentation of this project did the

best job of explaining the whole sequence). The history is well described. Objectives are

clearly explained in relation to fishery benefits. Methods are clear. Monitoring and

evaluation are well formulated and handled by the Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation

Program. Facilities are appropriate. The volunteer efforts are laudable. The proposers do

an excellent job of providing information to the public, which is essential to maintaining

a volunteer work force. There is clear benefit to fish, judged in terms of human use

through fisheries. The project meets all consistency criteria.

Some details of the proposal raised comment by the reviewers. Section c (Rationale and

Significance) contains unsupported statements in 2nd paragraph of p. 5 concerning (lack

of effect on?) genetic integrity of native rainbow trout and, as in other projects of this

province, the idea that stocking hatchery fish “tends to reduce harvest of native stocks

thereby helping to enhance their recovery.” These points are relevant on a broader basis

than just this one project, and warrant further evaluation on a subbasin basis. On the

positive side, reviewers were pleased to see some mention of a goal for angler harvest:

500,000 fish released for 190,000 fish in creel, (p5) overall 35-57% harvest. This is not

great, but probably in an acceptable range. The claim is that "survivors spawn along

shoreline in autumn, not in tributaries with native rainbows in spring” should be

substantiated somewhere. The possible issue of dilution of native rainbow stocks

because of successful spawning by netpen survivors is of concern here.

ProjectID: 199502800

Restore Moses Lake Recreational Fishery

Sponsor: WDFW

Short Description:

Restore/enhance the failed recreational fishery for resident species in Moses Lake, once

the premier fishery for resident game fish in the Columbia Basin, in lieu of lost

recreational anadromous fisheries.

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt

Comments:

Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. In the response,

sponsors should incorporate material presented at the meeting and revisions should be

better focused on the causes of fish species shifts and their potential management, e.g.

those actions that have more potential for pay off. The proposal was inadequate, but the

presentation cleared up some of the ISRP concerns. There is need for thinning the tasks.

This is a project for conducting research, evaluation, and mitigation to restore a onceproductive warm-water panfish fishery in Moses Lake. It is included in the Intermountain

subbasin because it receives water from the Columbia River via diversion from Lake

Roosevelt through Banks Lake. Management of Moses Lake is considered

substitution/mitigation for loss of anadromous salmonids above Chief Joseph Dam.

Although listed as a 1995 project, it has been funded for one year.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

31

The project seems to be off to a good start by compiling past records and monitoring the

system. Presentation of this information was informative and interesting. Species

composition in terms of numbers does not fully support the suggested trends, although

biomass does it better.

However, this is a poorly developed proposal that has problems, although the oral

presentation was much better and alleviated many concerns. The proposal seems not

founded on a basic understanding of lake processes, thus not directed toward

investigating why the ecosystem fails to support the desired fishery—or a suitable

substitute for it. It is not clear why the fishery declined. It is imperative to know what

the problem is before solutions can be found. The project proposal is concentrated on

superficial fishery matters and doesn’t get at the underlying habitat system. Some of the

deficiencies were identified in last year’s review.

The project would benefit from consultation with a senior scientist specializing in

limnology. The history of change in the lake’s drainage basin (vegetation, soils, land use,

other human activities, hydrology, etc.) should be examined, as well as basic change in

basic lake characteristics (limnology). Several basic questions need study. What are the

lake’s depth and wetted basin shape? Thermal stratification? Seasonal dissolved oxygen

profiles? Macrophyte types and extent? Ice cover? Do Dissolved Oxygen levels ever

become critical? What are the concentrations of toxic chemicals in the lake water? What

is the status of reproductive habitat for the various species of fish? What is their

reproductive success in different habitats? Where do the trout come from? Were they

stocked? Were other fish stocked? The proposal, despite its various tables of data, does

not touch adequately on any of these questions.

Various graphs in the proposal are labeled as growth of fish, whereas they are really just

length-at-age plots, from which growth rates are difficult even to infer. They were not

drawn in such a way as to show growth. Sample sizes and variances are not indicated.

Specific comments relate to certain objectives. The objective for a fish diet study seems

too large in scope (includes too many non-critical species). Also, gillnetting is not an

effective tool for a feeding study because of regurgitation. The objective to conduct a

population estimate (p 21) does not adequately demonstrate how this will be

accomplished. The objective of obtaining more age data is not critical to rational

management – a good idea of age and growth is already available. The same may be said

regarding GIS maps, except as incidental to other tasks. On the whole, this study plan

needs modification, largely to trim tasks to a critical few, and re-review.

The population trends look very much like those seen when common carp take over a

lake in the eastern United States. This observation is strengthened by the proposal’s

comment that commercial carp harvest had been curtailed for lack of a market. Fishery

management in such cases has been to stimulate carp harvest, either commercial or

through angler incentives (e.g., carp derbys which can be fun for all ages, youth carp

fishing days, spearing carp along shore during spawning). Once carp numbers are
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

32

reduced, other species such as the panfishes may bounce back on their own. An outside

advisor familiar with managing such carp lakes could be a benefit to the project.

On further revision of the study plan, the project should have a good benefit for fish, and

it meets the consistency criteria.

ProjectID: 21021

Ford Hatchery Improvement, Operation And Maintenance

Sponsor: WDFW

Short Description:

Improve water supply and operate and maintain Ford Hatchery to enhance the

recreational and subsistence kokanee fisheries in Lake Roosevelt and Banks Lake, and

bolster put-and-take resident trout fishing lakes in Region 1 (Eastern WA).

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt

Comments:

Fundable. Further ISRP response review is not needed. This is a straight-forward

proposal for upgrading a deteriorated water supply system in a hatchery that provides fish

for Lake Roosevelt and Banks Lake stocking programs (and a few others). The state has

agreed to pay for a new building that was once part of the proposal. The proposal also

includes M&E for Banks Lake and other minor lakes to assess success of the "plantings"

(which seems oddly placed in this proposal, although important).

There is well-written, informative background material. However, it is not clear that

added hatchery capacity is needed considering all the other hatchery facilities in the

subbasin, although the oral presentations indicated that there really is a need for more

hatchery rearing space. The relationship of this project to others in Lake Roosevelt is

described in the Spokane Tribal Hatchery (Galbraith Springs) Operation and Maintenance

Project 199104600. There still seems to be a need for prioritization among the several

hatcheries, but that goes beyond the ISRP role. There appears to be good benefit to fish

from stocking. Consistency criteria are met.

ProjectID: 199106200

Spokane Tribe of Indians Wildlife Mitigation Project

Sponsor: STOI

Short Description:

Mitigation and protection of lands purchased for partial mitigation on the Spokane Indian

Reservation due to the construction and inundation of winter range habitat caused by

Grand Coulee Dam.

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt

Comments:

Fundable only if the response includes more detail concerning methods for identification

of limiting factors to and for population-indexing (monitoring) of target species.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

33

Specific comments and questions.

1. The proposal is well written with attention to detail and ranking of lands that might be

purchased.

2. This is reported to be an ongoing project, but a project by this name and number was

not reviewed in the ISRP July 15, 1999, report. If this project is the same as the 1999

proposed project 20081, STOI Wildlife Land Acquisition And Enhancements, then

significant progress has been made in the quality of the proposal.

3. The proposal should contain designs and protocols with references for data collection

in the monitoring and evaluation section. Plans should be included for electronic storage

of data and metadata. Comparable methods are needed for monitoring and evaluation of

this and the other projects in the Inter-Mountain Province and to evaluate progress toward

meeting objectives of the sub-basin summaries.

ProjectID: 199204800

Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range Operation And Maintenance Project

Sponsor: CCT-FWD

Short Description:

Protect, enhance, manage and evaluate wildlife habitats and species for partial mitigation

for losses to wildlife resulting from Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph Dams.

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt, Lake Rufus Woods

Comments:

Fundable. The proposal addressed the ISRP’s past comments well and thoroughly. The

presentations and site visits further substantiated the value of the project. This appears to

be a well-managed and effective program. Further ISRP response review is not needed.

ProjectID: 199506700

Colville Tribes Performance Contract for Continuing Acquisition

Sponsor: CCT-FWD

Short Description:

Acquire, protect, enhance and evaluate wildlife habitat and species for partial mitigation

for losses to wildlife resulting from Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph Dams.

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt

Comments:

Fundable. The proposal addressed the ISRP’s past comments well and thoroughly. The

presentations and site visits further substantiated the value of the project. This appears to

be a well-managed and effective program. Further ISRP response review is not needed.

The proposal is to acquire an additional 2,000 to 4,000 acres of land (or management

rights thereto) for habitat mitigation. Criteria to be used for acquisition of particular lands

are specified and the site visit verified past effectiveness of purchases in addressing fish

and wildlife mitigation goals. The panel noted a need for this project to be able to have
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

34

more money readily available so that high priority properties can be purchased when they

become available. Perhaps a different arrangement with BPA could be arranged for

wildlife mitigation purchases for projects such as this that have established a sound

scientific approach. See the general ISRP comments on “Trust Funds for Habitat and

Water Right Acquisition.”

ProjectID: 199800300

Spokane Tribe of Indians Wildlife Operations and Maintenance

Sponsor: STOI

Short Description:

Partial mitigation to protect, mitigate, and enhance wildlife mitigation lands on the

Spokane Indian Reservation for construction and inundation losses of wildlife habitat on

the Spokane Indian Reservation caused by Grand Coulee Dams.

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt

Comments:

Fundable only if the response provides adequate detail concerning the methods for

enhancement and monitoring of target species. The concerns with the proposal were

mostly addressed at the presentation and should be elaborated on in a written response.

Comments and specific questions.

1. The proposal is improved from past versions, however additional details are needed on

enhancement and monitoring methods for target species. For example, what are the

methods for “...more intensive vegetation monitoring ...”, including criteria for location

of sites for noxious weed control.

2. It is not acceptable to include tasks of, for example, “This year we will determine how

many plots are needed and protocol on collecting information ...” Proposals should

contain designs and protocols with references for data collection in the monitoring and

evaluation section. Plans should be included for electronic storage of data and metadata.

Comparable methods are needed for monitoring and evaluation of this and other projects

in the Inter Mountain Province and to evaluate progress toward meeting objectives of the

subbasin summaries. The site-specific management plan that is stated as having been

submitted to Bonneville might be provided to facilitate review of methods and sampling

designs.

3. Explain why it is possible to have too much bitterbrush on deer winter range. Are

these old desiccate stands? What are the criteria for planting the different grass species,

e.g., crested wheatgrass? Crested wheatgrass has frequently been used to quickly stabilize

soils, but has proven to be poor habitat for wildlife. Explain other apparently

contradictory management practices such as burning to reduce shrubs versus active fire

suppression and planting to increase them, and planting crested wheatgrass versus

actively removing non-native species. This does not sound like working with natural

habitat potential.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

35

ProjectID: 21008

Evaluation of the Banks Lake Fishery

Sponsor: WDFW

Short Description:

Determine the abundance and ecological interactions of fish populations in Banks Lake.

Identify limiting factors for naturally recruiting and hatchery supplemented fish. Provide

management recommendations to maximize the fishing potential of Banks Lake.

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt

Comments:

Fundable. Further ISRP response review is not needed. This is a very thorough proposal

(indeed outstanding) that describes a gigantic, expensive project, which, however, looks

worthwhile in terms of yielding much benefit. It seems to cover most of the bases needed

for a great start, but we have a few misgivings, mentioned below. The proposal is strong

on technical background, bringing basic literature to bear, and on relevance to the FWP

and the subbasin plan. It has problems, though, in connecting the tasks and methods to

critical tests of the hypotheses. The material is well written; few terms and thoughts need

further explaining.

The emphasis of this project is to develop Banks Lake as major kokanee fishery. This

may not be possible in the face of warm summer temperatures, drawdown, and

entrainment. It would be better to make that assessment quickly rather than to futilely

increase future stocking of kokanee.

The role of walleye is unclear. It is ignored for the most part in the proposal objectives,

yet walleye have been stocked since 1992. The proposal contains vague words about

increasing burbot. It lacks further discussion about attempts to understand limiting factors

and management options.

The creel census that is described for the Ford Hatchery project (21021) might be more

appropriate for this project.

The personnel are well qualified for the task.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

36

ProjectID: 21020

Monitor and Enhance the Lakes and Streams of the Spokane Indian Reservation

Sponsor: STOI

Short Description:

Monitor current and future hatchery stocking of 4 interior lakes. Monitor natural and

hatchery fish stocks in streams within the Spokane Indian Reservation. Enhance lakes

and streams to maximize mitigation benefits to tribal members.

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt

Comments:

Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. The proposal

needs to be re-written. The proposal is sketchy and sometimes unclear. It does not

reference any pertinent fundamental scientific literature, only gray literature on the local

situation. Therefore, the technical and scientific background is deficient.

This should be an important M&E project for hatcheries (e.g., Spokane Tribal Hatchery)

that are stocking the reservation waters and for native populations in streams, but the

proposal does not convince us that the project is being properly conducted. Much of the

background material is helpful. The map was appreciated. The general rationale and

relationship to other projects are good. The objectives are good, but the methods are weak

(it is stated what would be done, but not how). There should be much value to fish from

this project if it is reworked. It meets consistency criteria.

The scientific/technical background provides much detail on conditions of tributaries and

creeks but doesn’t lay out the central problem in a clear way. For how long have hatchery

fish been stocked, and what is known about the effects? Given that healthy tributaries are

needed, why do the researchers need to determine the limiting factors when they state

(p.6) that limiting factors are levels of dissolved oxygen combined with temperatures?

Later on that page it states that this project will produce carrying capacity objectives for

each water body. This is different from identifying limiting factors.

The sampling design needs detail. If it hasn’t yet been developed, then at least the likely

literature sources for it should be shown. If the sampling methods and designs are not yet

set, then how can facilities, equipment and staffing be thought adequate?

Data would be gathered upon which to manage four "lakes" that total 75 acres and

apparently provide little angling. This appears to be a low-priority situation. Even if the

priority is adequate to warrant keeping this as part of the project, we are not convinced

that it is necessary to monitor all the physical and chemical characteristics of these lakes.

The limiting factors seem to have already been identified as anoxia and high

temperatures. The proposal mentions possible evaluation of measures to destratify the

lakes. Such an engineering evaluation may be more to the point than further studies to

refine details of the problem. The stated objectives are rather general and vague. The

proposal states that it is designed to “monitor (fish) stocking of 4 interior lakes”, yet there

is no mention of conducting a creel survey either by this project or another one. The catch

of stocked fish probably ought to be the first focus of a monitoring program. Estimates of
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

37

carrying capacity in the lakes that are mentioned are unlikely to be useful if they are

derived from the plan described.

One proposal objective is to monitor trout populations in the tributaries. Obviously, such

populations and “assemblages” can be strongly affected by fishing. Again, where is the

creel census and sampling design?

Also, tributaries to Lake Roosevelt will be sampled to secure 5 spawning populations of

wild kokanee. This task has higher potential value for Lake Roosevelt fishery.

Before improvements in culverts or diversions (p. 9) are made to enable fish passage, the

risks of damage to upstream native fish stocks by new stocks that move in should be

considered.

On narrative p. 8, paragraph 2, “instream structures” are mentioned. What kind were

they? What was their exact purpose? Similarly, in the next paragraph, reference to

“habitat restoration and connectivity efforts” is vague.

P. 9, last paragraph: What does “direct and indirect habitat improvement” mean?

The intentions regarding information transfer are unclear. This project should result in

reports containing analyses and interpretation, not just in the data base that is indicated on

p. 2 of the proposal’s part 1.

“Elecroshocking index sites” are mentioned (p. 9, paragraph 3). The type of

electrofishing gear to be used may well be the backpack units mentioned later in the same

paragraph for removing non-native fish. If so, this probably involves pulsed direct

current, and its drawbacks in terms of high rates of fish injury and death should be

acknowledged. The advantages of using far less destructive unpulsed DC (non-backpack

units) should be considered. The Montana Department of Fish Wildlife & Parks has

banned use of pulsed DC for sampling fish in that state.

Question: When restoration of anadromous fish populations above Grand Coulee is

mentioned, it is not clear that you really mean anadromous fish. The emphasis is on

habitat improvement. Please clarify.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

38

ProjectID: 21022

Evaluate Fish Habitat on the Middle Spokane / Little Spokane Rivers

Sponsor: Spokane County Public Works Department: Utilities Division

Short Description:

Identify target reaches on the Middle Spokane and Little Spokane Rivers. Use the

Instream Flow Incremental Methodology to characterize the amount of available habitat

for target reaches.

Subbasin: Spokane

Comments:

Do not fund. No response is warranted.

The proposal is generally well organized with respect to hierarchy of subjects but does

not link the project closely to the Fish and Wildlife Program or other projects in the

basin, does not indicate benefits to fish and wildlife, and does not adequately describe

methods and analyses. The methods section is a mere list of general procedures, often

phrased as objectives. What lies behind this proposal appears to be a controversy over

minimum instream flows set by the Washington Dept. of Ecology, following input from

WDFW.

The proposed project is based on IFIM/PHABSIM technique, the validity of which is

controversial among fish biologists (Castleberry et al. 1996; Van Winkel et al. 1997), and

the sponsor does not seem aware of the drawbacks and cautions with regard to its use.

We question whether the IFIM parameters proposed here are comprehensive enough for

this area. The effort would need to incorporate ground truthing—measures of important

physical habitat features and fish abundances at a wide variety of flows. Stalnaker (1990)

maintained that the minimum flow concept is a myth and should be discarded. Stream

ecologists now realize that, instead, full annual flow regimes should be considered; a

wide, in part seasonal variation of flows tends to be the natural condition to which the

biota is adapted and therefore often requires (Hill et al. 1991).

The project includes the tasks, 1. Consultation, 2. Collection of data for use in a model,

and 3. Complete the validation study (p. 2). What is meant by “consultation,” and what is

to be accomplished by it? Exactly what data will be collected and by what means? What

are statewide preference curves? Why would they be valid rather than site-specific data?

What are the properties of the model that is mentioned? What is meant by “complete the

validation study”? How would the report use factors such as physical feasibility, risk and

economics to formulate recommendations? The abstract provides more information

(incomplete as it is) on some of these subjects than does the body of the proposal.

Facilities and equipment (item g) required to complete the proposal were not given. The

information on qualifications of the project personnel is completely inadequate. Input into

the proposal from biologists seems to be lacking. No basic literature on stream ecology

and fish habitat was referenced. Unless basic stream ecology and stream fish

requirements are well understood, then the project is unlikely to pay off in terms of fish

and wildlife benefits.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

39

References:

Castleberry, D. T., and 11 co-authors. 1996. Uncertainty and instream flow standards.

Fisheries 21(8):20-21.

Hill, M. T., W. S. Platts, and R. L. Beschta. 1991. Ecological and geomorphological

concepts for instream and out-of-channel requirements. Rivers: Studies in the Science,

Environmental Policy, and Law of Instream Flow 2:198-210.

Stalnacker, C. B. 1990. Minimum flow is a myth. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv.

Biological Rept. 90(5):31-33.

Van Winkel, W., and 7 co-authors. Uncertainty and instream flow standards:

perspectives based on hydropower research and assessment. Fisheries 22(7):21-22.

ProjectID: 21017

Implement Wildlife Habitat Protection and Restoration on the Coeur d'Alene Indian

Reservation: Hangman Watershed.

Sponsor: Cd'A

Short Description:

Protect and/or restore riparian, wetland and priority upland wildlife habitats within the

Hangman Watershed on the Coeur d'Alene Indian Reservation as part of implementation

efforts in the Spokane River Subbasin.

Subbasin: Spokane

Comments:

Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. This is a wellprepared, highly persuasive proposal that deserves funding; however, additional detail is

needed on monitoring and evaluation methods.

Overall evaluation.

This proposal offers an exciting opportunity through a fortuitous set of land ownership

circumstances that will lead to major land and habitat reform within the upper Hangman

Creek watershed. The interaction with proposal 21018 is commendable for simultaneous

improvement of riparian habitat for wildlife and instream conditions for fish. The

monitoring and evaluation section does not have sufficient detail.

Specific comments and questions.

1. Long term planning for this proposal should include and emphasize peer-reviewed

publication of the results, as this is a novel and exciting approach.

2. Limiting factors are explicitly addressed. Objectives are specific and the establishment

of a trust fund for flexibility in securing management rights is a good idea.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

40

3. The proposal should contain designs and protocols with references for data collection

in the monitoring and evaluation section. Plans should be included for electronic storage

of data and metadata. Comparable methods are needed for monitoring and evaluation of

projects in the Inter Mountain Province and to evaluate progress toward meeting

objectives of the subbasin summaries.

ProjectID: 21018

Implement Fisheries Enhancement on the Coeur d'Alene Indian Reservation: Hangman

Creek

Sponsor: Cd'A

Short Description:

Determine the current distribution and enhancement opportunities for redband trout in

Hangman Creek and its tributaries within the Coeur d'Alene Reservation.

Subbasin: Spokane

Comments:

Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. The proposers

should be able to satisfy ISRP concerns in the response review. They made a good case

on improving riparian health and wildlife benefits, but were weak on the fish population

assessment component. The interaction with proposal 21017 is commendable for

simultaneous improvement of riparian habitat for wildlife and instream conditions for

fish. The two projects offer an exciting opportunity through a fortuitous set of land

ownership circumstances that can lead to major land and habitat reform within the middle

and upper Hangman Creek watershed.

Fish assessment methods were not adequately presented. The proposal needs additional

detail in its methods (including documentation) and M&E. The project staff should

ensure that they are familiar with fisheries methodologies and the relevant literature

beyond the immediate intermountain province. For example, backpack electroshocker is

listed as fish sampling gear. This probably means the current used will be pulsed DC.

The potential for high rates of fish injury and death from pulsed DC should be addressed,

and the advantages of using far less destructive unpulsed DC (non-backpack units) should

be considered. No basic, refereed literature on stream ecology and fish habitat was

referenced. If basic stream ecology and stream fish requirements are not followed, then

the project is not likely to pay off.

Similarly, data on the upper reaches needs to be included in the response. Specifically,

the watershed apparently was surveyed for westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout in

1998-99 – and weren't at least preliminary data gathered on redband trout? To what

portions of the subbasin are redband trout likely to be restored, and are those the portions

of the subbasin where riparian and instream improvements are planned?

Long term planning for this proposal should include and emphasize peer-reviewed

publication of the results, as this is a novel and exciting approach.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

41

ProjectID: 21030

Forest Carnivore Surveys for Spokane Subbasin

Sponsor: WDFW

Short Description:

This project will conduct surveys to verify many reported sightings of the lynx,

wolverine, marten and fisher in the Spokane Subbasin. Techniques will include the use of

remote cameras, bait stations, scratch stations, and track stations.

Subbasin: Spokane

Comments:

Do not fund. A response review is not warranted.

This weak proposal fails to establish why surveys of forest carnivores are of particular

relevance to the Fish and Wildlife Program. It provides an inadequate technical

background to the problem, simply describing the animals. It fails to present methods by

which the surveys will be conducted and does not establish how the work would be

beneficial to fish and wildlife. Although it would be useful to verify the sightings of the

forest carnivores, the proposal contains few details about methods and no indication of

what the likelihood of detecting a species may be assuming it is in fact present.

ProjectID: 21031

Land Use Analyses of Spokane County

Sponsor: WDFW

Short Description:

This project analyzes and compares past and current vegetation types and land uses in

order to determine, and for the future, predict, the impacts different land uses and human

development has had and will have on wildlife in Spokane County.

Subbasin: Spokane

Comments:

Do not fund. The proposal is not adequately tied to the Fish and Wildlife Program and

potential benefits are not demonstrated. A response review is not warranted.

Specific comments and questions to address in future proposals.

1. Field sampling procedures for public and private land should be described for ground

truth (field testing) of the accuracy of classifications from the recent photographs. How

many randomly selected points would be visited in each class? What procedures will be

applied if access is denied? What accuracy is required and what are the criteria for

accepting the results? If changes are made based on field visits, will a second set of

random points be selected?

2. We assume that procedures developed for digitizing and classifying the recent

photographs would be used to digitize and classify the old photographs, but these kind of
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

42

assumptions should be spilled out in detail. How will the accuracy of classifications

based on the old photographs be assessed?

3. No reference is given to the FWP or other projects funded by BPA.

ProjectID: 199501100

Chief Joseph Kokanee Enhancement Project

Sponsor: CCT

Short Description:

Determine natural production kokanee status using adult recruitment, genetic stock

mapping and entrainment at Grand Coulee Dam as indicators. Enhance kokanee and

rainbow trout populations by augmentation and entrainment prevention.

Subbasin: San Poil, Lake Rufus Woods

Comments:

Fundable. Further ISRP response review is not needed. It was evident that the project has

been significantly re-energized over the preceding year, dropping two objectives and

focusing on assessing and ultimately reducing kokanee entrainment. Results presented

from the year 2000 study of fish distribution and water velocity adjacent to the third

powerplant were exciting and provided compelling evidence of recent progress toward

those goals.

The proposal for ongoing work clearly outlined efforts to monitor kokanee abundance

and collect genetic sample material at a number of sites, to contract analysis that will

hopefully complete characterization of the stocks present, and to contract evaluation of a

prototype strobe light system. These tasks seem well organized and staffed by personnel

likely to produce quality scientific results.

The ISRP is gratified that this important project has demonstrated its previous results and

embarked on a rigorous research program directed at a principal problem of Lake

Roosevelt that affects many other BPA-funded projects. The turn-around from last year’s

review is to be commended.

ProjectID: 199001800

Evaluate Rainbow Trout/Habitat Improvements Of Tributaries To Lake Roosevelt

Sponsor: CCT

Short Description:

Increase the quality and quantity of spawning and rearing habitat in selected streams that

drain into Lake Roosevelt by eliminating migration barriers, improving riparian

conditions, and improving instream habitat.

Subbasin: San Poil

Comments:

Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP concerns. Proposers have

focused on evaluating fish barriers because they have shown that strategy works. The

proposal to continue to evaluate and improve fish passage seems appropriate. However,
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

43

there is risk if remnant populations of bull, redband or cutthroat trout exist above a barrier

and would be impacted by introgression or competition if the barrier were removed.

Protocol for assessing and protecting any remnant populations should be added to the

proposal.

The proposal focuses on Bridge Creek, where a fish passage problem clearly exists.

Plans to evaluate, monitor, and recreate the original stream channel seemed well thought

through. But what about after Bridge Creek? Are there similar problem sites elsewhere?

A three-year plan, or description of how such a plan will be developed, should be

presented.

The figures provided to convey data in the proposal and presentation were inadequate to

allow reviewers to understand past results. Those figures should be re-done with more

appropriate axes and labels. Also, the scientific background material contains only gray

literature. It should include also substantial reference to basic material on stream ecology

and fish habitat.

Figure 2 on p. 10 shows “Fish Density.” Does this pertain to juveniles or adults?

Paragraph 2 on p. 10 begins: “Habitat improvements such as drop structures and meander

construction were selected as the method to extend flow duration [emphasis added]. . .”

What does this mean?

Same paragraph: a “strategy” is mentioned in the last sentence. What strategy?

P. 13, near end of paragraph 2: “The exclosure was less than effective in reducing

livestock damage to the plants stocked.” Why was the exclosure less than effective?

P. 14, near end of first paragraph: “Fencing projects to control livestock use in riparian

areas is [sic] not a guarantee of success for recovery of the riparian function.” Why not?

P. 17, paragraph 2: A backpack electrofisher is mentioned as the sampling gear for

population estimates. This probably means the current used will be pulsed DC. The

drawbacks of high rates of fish injury and death from pulsed DC should be

acknowledged, and the advantages of using far less destructive unpulsed DC (nonbackpack units) should be considered. We understand that the Montana Department of

Fish Wildlife & Parks has banned use of pulsed DC for sampling fish in that state.

P. 18, Task 12: Landowner maintenance of riparian protection fences is stated. What will

be the quality control on the maintenance?
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

44

ProjectID: 21002

Early life history and survival of adfluvial rainbow trout in the San Poil River Basin

Sponsor: PNNL

Short Description:

Investigate overwintering behavior and survival of juvenile adfluvial rainbow trout in the

San Poil River drainage and examine relationships between habitat parameters and

survival.

Subbasin: San Poil

Comments:

Fundable. Further ISRP response review is not needed. This was viewed as an excellent

proposal in all respects. It examines a time period (winter) when mortality of juvenile

salmonid fishes is high but causes of death are poorly understood. During the field tour

there was ample evidence that habitat in streams throughout the subbasin was impacted

by land use practices enough that winter fish habitat was probably far below optimal, and

in some cases almost non-existent. Results of the proposed study should assess that

possibility and identify critical habitat needs. It will be especially important for the PIs to

actively involve biologists from the Colville Consolidated Tribe and Colville National

Forest and for them to be proactive in communicating results to other land managers in

the province.

The proposal's PIs have strong publication records and substantial winter research

experience. They are very well qualified to perform outstanding work on a key topic

here. Videography under ice is largely an untested technique, but probably worth a try

here.

Reviewer Comments on Columbia River Gorge Province

Proposals

ProjectID: 21012

Evaluate Status of Coastal Cutthroat Trout in the Columbia River Basin above Bonneville

Dam

Sponsor: USGS-CRRL

Short Description:

Survey Columbia River tributaries above Bonneville Dam for coastal cutthroat trout to

determine population status, to identify limiting factors, and to understand the role of

current and past human and natural disturbances affecting status.

Subbasin: Columbia Gorge

Comments:

Do not fund. A response is not warranted. The proposal was generally well written and

the PI has superior qualifications and a strong publication record, and the proposed work

is needed. However, this project appears likely to duplicate other subbasin efforts that

already should have collected (or are collecting) some data on coastal cutthroat

populations. While it is important and timely to complete a comprehensive status

assessment of coastal cutthroat trout, it would make more sense to expand this type of
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

45

assessment work beyond individual species and include all varieties of resident salmonids

and amphibians. For example, bull trout surveys will likely cover much of the same

ground and observe cutthroat trout, if present. It would be much more cost-efficient if

this cutthroat survey work could be combined with the bull trout survey, project

199405400. From a sampling standpoint, a single survey for all salmonid fishes (and

nongame fishes) and amphibians would yield superior data and pose less risk of physical

injury from repeated electrofishing.

The curent proposal only vaguely addressed the approach that would be used to

characterize limiting factors. There is a need to better review the existing literature and

existing population data on coastal cutthroat trout and to utilize that information to

develop a stronger proposal that more specifically targets limiting factors. The study

methods in general seemed appropriate. However, the proposed study would include data

collection only under summer low-flow conditions, but there is no longer any reason to

only sample at that time. Fall/winter sampling is technically feasible and often enables

better assessment of limiting factors. Would that not be the case in this situation? Also,

a just-published test of stream sampling methods (Roni and Fayram (2000) North Amer.

J. Fisheries Mgt. 20:683) should be helpful.

We suggest that if at all possible, the principal investigator from this project could act as

a coordinator for coastal cutthroat trout status assessment work in the province.

ProjectID: 21005

Characterize and Assess Wildlife-Habitat Types and Stuctural Conditions for Sub-Basins

within the Columbia Gorge Ecoprovince

Sponsor: NHI

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.

Subbasin: Columbia Gorge

Comments:

Fundable if three conditions are met 1) a regional need by resource managers is

demonstrated and 2) the ground truth methods are presented in more detail, and 3) the

maps to be generated are specified as a deliverable to the funding agency rather than a

product that NHI may own and sell. Further, the ISRP questions whether objective 2

should be included. This might better be left to local resource managers to evaluate with

direct, primary local data. A response is needed that provides sufficient information

before the project could be recommended for funding.

Overall evaluation. The proposers appear competent for completion of the project. Except

for field testing, the proposal appears to provide adequate technical background and

justification, however it’s not written for reviewers who are not expert in GIS. The

proposal does not refer to any sub basin plan objective, only asserts that "planning

requires a finer resolution of mapping than what [sic] currently exists", the objectives are
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

46

not measurable with respect to wildlife restoration. The proposal indicates that it would

build on previous work and emphasizes information transfer. However, the direct benefits

to fish and wildlife and relationship to other projects are not explained. The usefulness of

resulting maps to resource managers is not demonstrated, and resource managers in the

Province have not been asked to support the project. Proposed methods for monitoring

and evaluation of the utility of the classification maps are lacking.

Specific comments and questions.

1. The field-based ground truth task is not presented in sufficient detail. Procedures for

defining strata, selection of random points within strata, and methods for dealing with

access problems should be presented. For example, will the number of random points

which could not be accessed in the field be reported? Will all 32 classes be ground

truthed in the field? What is the procedure for determining the number of random field

points to be visited in each class? What is the criterion and sample size to have an

accuracy of 75% on each class? Will the lower limit of a 95% confidence interval be

required to be above 0.75? It was stated during the oral presentation that if the criteria are

failed for some class, then a completely new random sample of points from that class

would be visited in the field? We would like to see this commitment more clearly

expressed in the proposal. Will the field-testing be conducted blind, i.e., will field

personnel not know the “office classification” before they visit a random point in the

field? What are the criteria for identification of each of the 32 classes when the biologist

is standing at a random point in the field?

2. Are this proposal and its sister proposal in the Inter-Mountain Province the initial

proposals to map the entire Columbia Basin at this scale? Is there a Columbia Basin wide

need for vegetation maps at this scale? Will there be any cost savings to other Provinces

if this proposal is funded? Perhaps a pilot project should be funded to demonstrate the

utility of the project.

3. The maps and resulting classifications should not be viewed as primary data. The

mapping project uses primary data from the current Landsat Thematic Mapper, but

classifications are derived and are subject to change in the future based on a different

procedure.

These comments and recommendations mirror those for the Inter-Mountain proposal,

#21006.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

47

ProjectID: 21013

Western Pond Turtle Recovery - Columbia River Gorge

Sponsor: WDFW

Short Description:

Protect existing WPT population through habitat improvements, expand WPT population

through "head start " program and continue reintroductions at USFWS Pierce National

Wildlife Refuge.

Subbasin: Columbia Gorge

Comments:

Fundable only if the response makes a better case for the proposal's tie to the Columbia

Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Although this project relates to a Washington State

Recovery Plan, it does not make any reference to the Fish and Wildlife Program. It was

unclear if this was a species of concern across the region, e.g. in Oregon.

Otherwise, the project was well described, with clear objectives, a competent research

and implementation team, and offers what appears to be a high likelihood of success. It

was a bit difficult to assess PI credentials – no CVs provided.

This proposal addresses a recovery problem that already involves a number of agencies

and NGOs. There were no explicit plans for information transfer from the project’s

results, however. The presentation was good and addressed several questions generated

from the proposal review such as the results of the “head start” effort.

ProjectID: 21011

Assess the Current Status and Biotic Integrity of the Resident Fish Assemblage in

Bonneville Reservoir

Sponsor: USGS/CRRL

Short Description:

Resident fish in Bonneville Reservoir will be sampled to provide baseline information on

the population characteristics and status of resident fish species and the biotic integrity of

the resident fish assemblage.

Subbasin: Bonneville Reservoir

Comments:

Do not fund. A response is not warranted. The proposal is generally well written and

addresses some concerns (i.e., reference to data sources for other large river/reservoir

settings) identified by last years review (project 20066). Other sampling concerns (i.e.,

possible utilization of more quantifiable sampling techniques) were not addressed. In the

reviewers minds, the proposal continued to contain only vague allusions to a general need

for more data, without indicating why it is priority work or identifying substantative

problems that need to be solved. The major task proposed - assessing efficacy of various

sampling gear - could have been done in preliminary fashion as part of proposal

preparation, allowing the proposers to focus on critical questions as significant

objectives. The database the project could generate would be very useful if a major
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

48

change in the hydrosystem or its operation was being planned, as baseline data from

which to assess changes. Alternatively (or additionally) there is a need for biological

investigation of the reservoir to help understand its carrying capacity for salmonids and to

assess whether that capacity is currently exceeded. As written, the proposal was not

pointed in that direction.

Reviewers are concerned that the biologic integrity portion of the proposal likely will not

provide a product that will be of substantial use in the context of the Fish and Wildlife

Program. IBI was developed for detecting disruptions in stable communities, but was not

developed for use in highly perturbed systems. The most likely result of the analysis

would be to describe the system as high variable and highly perturbed - which we already

know. Collaboration with others is not identified. Specifically, the project is not tied to

northern pike minnow work.

Reviewer Comments on the Hood River Subbasin and Hood River

Production Program (HRPP)

The Hood River Subbasin Summary was well written and thorough. The Hood River

group is on the right track with their watershed assessments and rehabilitation plans listed

by priority of action. Concerns are with the hatchery program and the issue of passage at

the dam.

Summer and winter steelhead stocks have been in decline during the 1990s, and are now

down to less than 200 and 300 fish, respectively, and far below the escapement goal of

2,400 fish. A crude recruitment analysis, assuming these fish were, on average, 4 yearsold at return, suggested both stocks are below replacement. The abundance of each

seemed correlated, suggesting factors in the decline are affecting both stocks, now down

to less than 1or 2 fish/km. It is not possible to separate the freshwater from the marine

factors in the decline since no data on wild smolt yield is given. However, the decline is

likely related to marine conditions, as found elsewhere. Data on smolt yield exists (five

rotary screw traps in the watershed) so an analysis of overall smolt yield and return may

be possible. Survivals on hatchery steelhead seemed peculiar in that winter-run hatchery

releases faired worse, at less than 1% from 60,000 releases, than summer-runs, which

apparently had survivals near 3%. Something is odd about this difference - either the

release numbers have varied, summer and winter runs are misidentified, or summer runs

are doing something different (migration pathways?). A more thorough treatment of the

stock assessment information available is required.

The use of wild brood stock for hatchery purposes, while commendable and correct at the

best of times (i.e., when survivals warrant it), is likely depleting the limited wild stock

without increased return, given these poor survival rates. Furthermore, supplementation

is focusing on the wrong life stage if the current limitation is in the smolt-to-adult stage.

It is difficult to separate the "supplementation" from the fish released for harvest. All fish

for harvest should be released below the dam. A review and justification of the

supplementation program is required.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

49

The comparisons and conclusions on acclimation (Figs. 11 and 12 in the summary) suffer

from having no within-year control, and were not in agreement with the presentation on

this issue which indicated there was no benefit to acclimation. Fish released from these

facilities will compete with wild parr and smolts, particularly if a large portion

residualize. Half of the males (perhaps as many as 15,000 of 60,000 releases in this

watershed) may fail to migrate, and compete for food and space with wild fish. They

plan to study residualism, but some information should already be available, and

presented.

A review of the harvest-fish release and returns and consequences to the wild population

is needed. What are the consequences within the Bonneville Pool and elsewhere when

hatchery smolts out-number wild by several fold? Even catch-and-release fishing has an

impact, particularly where effort is high, and this wild population can withstand no

harvest impact. This form of supplementation may be doing more harm than good to the

wild population; likewise for the harvest program.

They should proceed with their watershed rehabilitation plans and hope that these

attempts will improve productivity and capability in freshwater to offset the dramatic

declines in smolt-to-adult survival. Meanwhile, there is a need to do more work on the

latter, including mortality in the downstream migration within the Hood, within the

Bonneville Pool, down the Columbia, at the river mouth, and during the coastal

migration. Comments above on hatchery harvest and supplementation will apply to

several watersheds, thus an overall review may be required.

Recommendation for the set of HRPP proposals: Fundable only if the response

adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns.

Issues to address:

1. The proposals contained little specific data presentation.

2. Quantify the juvenile loss through the Powerdale hydro facility.

3. Consider using PIT tags or acoustic tags in the smolt evaluations.

4. Release all smolts below the dam where the goal is to increase the available harvest

but consider/address the indirect impacts to wild fish from C&R.

5. The turn-back of hatchery steelhead at the ladder has increased straying, and may

have lad to increased angling effort within the lower river (thus further C&R of wild).

Alternatives to turnback should be provided (cull?).

6. What are the consequences of increased hatchery smolt presence within the

Bonneville Reservoir, the lower Columbia River, and at the mouth, and given the

aggregate hatchery releases in the Province and elsewhere?

7. Justify hatchery production levels. In the absence of quantitative stock assessments,

the proposals fail to justify technically the need for the projects presented. For

example, what is the basis for the numbers of hatchery fish to be released?

8. Develop a monitoring and evaluation plan for the separate tasks of harvest

development, supplementation, and habitat rehabilitation.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

50

As with our FY2000 comments, these six projects are inextricably linked together to form

the Hood River Production Program. It was difficult to evaluate each project singly,

particularly with respect to the methods and M&E criteria. The proposals contained little

specific data presentation, in spite of monitoring at some level for up to 6 or seven years.

Presentations were similarly lacking in data presentation and reinforced these

observations.

The Hood River Production Program has many things going for it, including its dedicated

staff, high quality facilities (Powerdale collection site and Parkdale), links between the

habitat restoration efforts and the production program, etc. Nevertheless, the M&E

portion of the program fails to adequately address monitoring and evaluation questions

that are critical to the program’s success. These include quantifying the juvenile loss

through the Powerdale hydro facility, lack of consideration of using PIT tag technology

to gather additional juvenile migration and adult return data, and deeper integration of the

wild and hatchery production components for winter steelhead goals.

Acclimation as a supplementation strategy, as a means to enhance the survivability of

artificially produced smolts released into the watershed, seems not to have been

demonstrated, at least by the data presented in the proposals. Reviewers perceive that a

better strategy for enhancing winter steelhead fisheries would be to release all smolts

below the dam.

Recycling as a fishery-enhancement tactic, returning marked steelhead to the mouth of

the tributary to make them available to harvest again, seems to have been responsible for

enhanced straying into other watersheds; if so the practice is detrimental to the

maintenance of biodiversity in the subbasin and should be curtailed.

Finally, density limits in the Bonneville Pool and lower Columbia River need to be

addressed in this Subbasin Summary and others as a potential factor limiting salmon

productivity. Without appropriate assessment of stocks including survival in the pool and

lower river, and without consideration of density as a potential limiting factor, managers

may inappropriately increase smolt releases to the detriment of future cohorts of native

salmon. Reviewers note with concern that proposers in the Hood River program

contemplate doubling of hatchery production as a method of supplementation; the

detrimental effect of this increased density of salmon smolts on the survival of native

salmon has apparently not been considered.

ProjectID: 198805307

Hood River Production Program: Powerdale, Parkdale, Oak Springs O&M (88-053-07 &

88-053-08)

Sponsor: CTWS and ODFW

Short Description:

Restore depressed populations of StS & StW and re-establish a self-sustaining ChS

population in the Hood River subbasin. Broodstock will be collected at the Powerdale

Facility. Broodstock will be held and spawned at the Parkdale Fish Facility.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

51

Subbasin: Hood

Comments:

Recommendation for the set of HRPP proposals: Fundable only if the response

adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. See subbasin comments, above.

The reviewers were concerned by the proposed goal to double hatchery production as a

method of supplementation. This goal seems inconsistent with our understanding of

supplementation (e.g., RASP 1992; SRT Report 1999).

Using data from the proposers own presentation during the site visit, acclimation does not

increase survival, yet they are proposing construction of more acclimation sites. Instead,

we suggest releasing all hatchery winter steelhead smolts below Powerdale Dam, because

of mortality associated with passage at the dam and increased interaction with wild fish in

the river above the dam. Therefore, the need for the acclimation sites is questionable.

The M&E portion of the program (nearly one million dollars between projects

198805304 and 198805303) fails to adequately address questions that are critical to the

program’s success. See comments above on the set of proposals.

With current return levels and the indication of SARs of ~6% for wild steelhead,

compared to SARs of 1% or less for hatchery winter steelhead, why is there a winter

steelhead hatchery program at all? If the preliminary SAR data are indicative of fitness

differences between wild and hatchery produced fish, then continuing the hatchery

program could undermine the fitness of the wild stock. Decisions on when to proceed

with hatchery programs for harvest generation or supplementation for population rebuilding need to be based on demographic information and life-stage survival rates.

In spite of these shortcomings, this was a fairly complete and often detailed proposal. The

project proposal is well crafted and went into some detail about the rationale for the Hood

River Production Program, but contained insufficient detail about performance to date,

specifically, with respect to escapement and SARs. This was not covered more fully in

the HRPP M&E proposal; thus, the omission from both proposals was surprising since

specific escapement and SAR goals were mentioned for chinook and both races of

steelhead.

ProjectID: 198805304

Hood River Production Program - ODFW M&E

Sponsor: ODFW

Short Description:

Monitor and evaluate actions taken to re-establish spring chinook salmon, and improve

wild production of summer and winter steelhead, in the Hood River subbasin. Data will

be used to develop, and refine, management objectives for the HRPP.

Subbasin: Hood

Comments:

Recommendation for the set of HRPP proposals: Fundable only if the response

adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. See subbasin comments, above.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

52

The lack of peer-reviewed publications at present is understandable, due to the

incomplete evaluation datasets. Additional years will be required (out to 2007 for some

stocks) to collect the necessary data for evaluation. Nevertheless, the study is likely to

generate results that will be of great interest throughout the basin.

According to the related proposal 1989-029-00, the average spring chinook smolt-toadult return from the 1993, 1994, and 1995 brood years have been ~0.15%. This is far

below the 0.68% SAR target, which suggests that there may be opportunities to improve

survival of hatchery smolts. Perhaps taking 50% of the returning adults for broodstock is

a bit risky until the performance of hatchery releases can be demonstrably improved.

There doesn’t seem to be a mechanism in the set of proposals to evaluate the relative

benefits and risks of bringing 50% of the run into the hatchery versus passing them above

Powerdale Dam for natural reproduction, where SARs may be better (or worse) than for

the hatchery cohort. Provide this evaluation.

ProjectID: 198902900

Hood River Production Program - Pelton Ladder - Hatchery

Sponsor: ODFW

Short Description:

Re-establish a self-sustaining spring chinook salmon population in the Hood River

subbasin. Broodstock will be collected from Hood River. Broodstock will be held at the

Parkdale Facility. Incubation and rearing will be completed at Round Butte Hatchery

Subbasin: Hood

Comments:

Recommendation for the set of HRPP proposals: Fundable only if the response

adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. See subbasin comments, above.

The ISRP comments from the FY2000 review of the project proposal remain relevant.

This project is integrally linked to a number of the other key ongoing projects within the

Hood River subbasin. The fish production described in this proposal is critical to the

Hood River Production Program, as it stands defined.

Objectives are well delineated, although the technical details of methodology are not

always so detailed. If procedures are not changing, the details may not be all that

necessary. The methods could better line up with the objectives.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

53

ProjectID: 198805303

Hood River Production Program - CTWSRO M&E

Sponsor: CTWSRO

Short Description:

Implement, monitor, and evaluate actions outlined in the Hood River and Pelton Ladder

Master Plans pertaining to smolt production, acclimation, and habitat. Coordinate Pelton

Ladder production.

Subbasin: Hood

Comments:

Recommendation for the set of HRPP proposals: Fundable only if the response

adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. See subbasin comments, above.

The ISRP’s FY2000 review comments remain germane to this project. Past progress (in

general terms, but not data results) is described; feasibility and value of continuation

seems very high. While the program is still in its early implementation phase, this

proposal (and others in the groups) would have benefited by the inclusion of more results

of previous studies by ODFW and CTWSRO.

The progressive nature of this project warrants publication in peer-reviewed journals. As

project evaluations occur from 2000 through 2007 (based on the four-year minimum

datasets described on pp. 5-6 of the narrative in proposal 1988-053-04), the region and

the fisheries community at large will have great interest in the program’s results. We

encourage project planning that facilitates dissemination of the program’s results through

publication in peer-reviewed journals beyond the required annual reports to BPA.

ProjectID: 199500700

Hood River Production - PGE: O&M

Sponsor: PGE

Short Description:

This contract funds the Facilities O&M at the PGE Pelton Ladder - Round Butte

Hatchery Complex

Subbasin: Hood

Comments:

Recommendation for the set of HRPP proposals: Fundable only if the response

adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. See subbasin comments, above.

This is integrally linked to a number of the other key ongoing projects. The fish

production herein is critical to the HRPP as it stands defined. It appears that the original

concerns of using non-native fish have been addressed - unless there are some difficulties

that are not apparent from the narrative. The objectives are listed only in tabular form and

aren’t really objectives, and measurable biological objectives are not really biological

objectives, either (they at least are not clearly stated). This proposal does not follow the

standard write-up. No completion date is given, though the budget goes out through at

least FY 2004. This proposal was not as well justified as the other HRPP proposals.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

54

ProjectID: 199802100

Hood River Fish Habitat Project

Sponsor: CTWSRO

Short Description:

Implement habitat improvement actions that will support wild fish and supplementation

efforts within the Hood River subbasin as approved by the NPPC and supported by the

BPA Environmental Impact Statement for the Hood River Production Program (HRPP).

Subbasin: Hood

Comments:

Fundable. Further ISRP response review is not needed. This watershed effort is a good

example of a well run Watershed Council process. With the addition of the document

delivered at the meeting, Hood River Fish Habitat Protection, Restoration, and

Monitoring Plan, the ISRP’s concerns were addressed.

Many of the ISRP’s FY2000 review comments remain pertinent to our present review of

this project. This is a complex project involving substantial funding from a large number

of sources. It is linked to a number of other projects within the subbasin. The cost share

looks attractive; the rationale looks appropriate. The proposal would have benefited from

more presentation of biological gains, even at this relatively early juncture in the project’s

proposed tenure. We recognize that the project is relatively new and that benefits to fish

and wildlife from habitat improvement projects take time to accrue and measure.

Nevertheless, the project sponsors generally tended to describe past accomplishments in

terms of actions completed without discussing the biological benefits gained from the

action (some of which could have been measured even at this early stage).

The weakest part of the proposal is the lack of a clear evaluation methodology for

assessing long-term success of the alterations. How will success/failure be defined? For

example, “spawning ground surveys will be completed annually to assess the upstream

passage/spawning benefits.” What level of adult returns will be used to define success?

How will variability be addressed? Time lags? At this cost, the project sponsors need to

assure that the work is providing measurable benefits to fish and wildlife. They need to

better document the interaction of this project with 1988-053-03, the monitoring and

evaluation component of the HRPP. See General Issues and comments on the need for an

integrated approach to M&E in the Province across all subbasins. Given smolt yield as a

possible response variable to watershed rehabilitation, is the Hood River a candidate for

detailed monitoring or routine monitoring, and compared to what?
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

55

ProjectID: 199304000

Fifteenmile Creek Habitat Restoration Project (Request For Multi-Year Funding)

Sponsor: ODFW

Short Description:

Provide for continued operation and maintenance of all completed habitat restoration

measures within the Fifteenmile Subbasin. Continue photo documentation of habitat

recovery and the collection of stream temperature data.

Subbasin: Fifteenmile

Comments:

Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP concerns. Roll the proposal

up into an overall watershed restoration plan that includes all related activities tied to

watershed assessment, prescriptions listed by importance of implementation,

rehabilitation plans, and a monitoring and evaluation stage that is coordinated within the

province. The monitoring plan needs to go beyond the photopoint approach, and

expanded to monitor key water quality, vegetation, and fish community responses.

Comments from the FY2000 still apply. Using solar pumping stations to replace

watergaps is a valuable improvement; thus, they should emphasize the solar pump work.

They should also look into options of other mechanisms than 15-year leases.

This proposal provides a good description of the project since its inception, and actions

taken to restore riparian habitat. After an implementation phase of the project, which

involved the acquisition of 15-year leases as well as direct actions taken to restore

riparian habitat, the project in now in an operations and maintenance phase.

Despite the clear and detailed description of the project’s history and of subbasin limiting

factors, the proposal provides much less detail on monitoring progress toward meeting

objectives. For example, the six initial objectives include unimpeded passage, reduced

sedimentation, increased flows, reduced temperatures, etc. But these specific measures

are not all addressed in the discussion of photopoint monitoring. Moreover, despite

O&M work since 1986, the proposal gave no indication of water temperature

improvement to date and no indication of increase in fish population.

The proposal also should include a more detailed assessment of what is likely to happen

in 2012 when the last lease expires. Are the incentives facing landowners sufficient to

ensure that riparian protection will be maintained? Will the cost of fence repair, etc. be

considered affordable? How would maintaining the existing riparian improvements

benefit landowners?

To assess whether objectives of the project are being met, the tasks should be directly tied

to objectives in a measurable way. Objective 1, to “protect, enhance and restore” is too

vague to be directly measured. Objective 2, to monitor the success of recovery efforts, is

limited to stream temperature and canopy closure. What about the other factors listed as

original objectives? Objective 3 could use more specifics as to how the transfer of

information will take place, and what is expected for outcomes.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

56

This work (and others) could benefit from a comparative approach (treated /untreated). It

seems population viability may remain at question, but this work addresses the only

current means of increasing survivals overall by increasing it in the freshwater life stage.

ProjectID: 199304001

15-Mile Creek Steelhead Smolt Production

Sponsor: ODFW

Short Description:

Estimate subbasin smolt production for the wild population of winter steelhead in

Fifteenmile Creek and collect information on selected life history and biological

characteristics of downstream migrant fishes endemic to Fifteenmile Creek.

Subbasin: Fifteenmile

Comments:

Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. The anticipated

improvements from the fencing and water acquisition projects suggest that the

productivity of the system for winter steelhead may improve for the future. The proposed

budget for a screw trap may be necessary for stock assessment; but reviewers are

concerned about the adequacy of the proposed stock assessment. Proposers do not seem

to consider gathering information about survival outside the basin (PIT tags), nor do they

consider the value of demographic sampling (scales for aging) or of size and condition

information. It may be that steelhead fry and parr may not rear only in Fifteenmile Creek

but also may use the Columbia mainstem for rearing, historically; this project could

provide information about this life history. A review of the methods and effectiveness of

rotary screw traps in providing reliable smolt yield estimates may be required. Recapture

rates may be low, but methods of improving the technique may be available (such as

separate marking and recapture sites). A province-wide agreement on monitoring

protocol and sites would assist (see comments on subbasin planning workshops under

Programmatic Issues).

ProjectID: 21001

Fifteenmile Creek Riparian Fencing / Physical stream Survey Project

Sponsor: ODFW

Short Description:

Construct approximately 30 miles of riparian protection fence over a three year period

along Fifteenmile Creek and it's tributaries. Conduct a phyical stream of 90 miles of

privatly owned stream in the Fifteenmile Subbasin.

Subbasin: Fifteenmile

Comments:

Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP concerns. This project

should be rolled into the habitat restoration proposal 199304000 and they should explore

cost saving by seeking alternatives to 15 year leases. The fencing work to date is an

impressive record, and the proposed work finishes the task (maintenance will need to

continue). They might also consider tree planting to accelerate the recovery process.

However, the proposal and presentation did not indicate that steelhead rear in the lower
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

57

sections – the majority of the spawning and rearing occurs in the upper part of the

watershed, thus rehabilitation needs to focus to this area. The lower area has low flow

and temperature problems and may partly be improved over time by the actions proposed,

although the lower reaches are primarily a migration corridor. Nevertheless, other fish

and wildlife may benefit from this fence work during summer rearing. The area fenced

should be a function of the riparian area requirement and the local landscape and not a

fixed width. An overall watershed restoration plan with tasks listed by order of

importance is required. Evaluation and monitoring should be integrated within the

province, and should be approached on a watershed scale where the treatment is

restoration (all aspects) compared to no treatment, and where the response variables may

be smolt yield or smolts per spawner at some point on the recruitment curve (max

recruitment, MSY, or capacity production).

ProjectID: 21014

Mitigate Streambank Sediment Sources in Fifteenmile Watershed using Bioengineering

Techniques

Sponsor: Wasco SWCD

Short Description:

Treat seven sites of active streambank erosion using bioengineering techniques that

promote revegetation of banks, dissipates hydrologic energy and create instream habitat.

Subbasin: Fifteenmile

Comments:

Fundable. Further ISRP response review is not needed. Roll up into an overall watershed

restoration plan. Past success with this approach in the watershed was evident from the

site visit. This is costly work thus there is a need to ensure the habitat is protected from

future bank erosion. Do salmonids use these areas for spawning and rearing? Areas

visited did not appear to be prime rearing habitat. Proponents have been active at this

and other tasks in the watershed (fencing, etc.). Some indication that major sediment

sources are being addressed is required – has there been a sediment source analysis and is

this the key source? Perhaps some level of monitoring success at achieving reduced

erosion and sedimentation by a sub-sampling scheme (sediment traps?) could be

considered. Done right, the bank erosion work in this watershed could provide

demonstration of the techniques and benefits for other subbasins in the area with similar

plans.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

58

ProjectID: 21015

Riparian Buffers

Sponsor: Wasco SWCD

Short Description:

Implements riparian buffer program using cost share provided by USDA, state of Oregon,

and private landowners

Subbasin: Fifteenmile

Comments:

Fundable. Further ISRP response review is not needed. This one FTE should also be part

of the watershed assessment and restoration team. Consider this application in the other

watersheds under an integrated plan.

This proposal is to take advantage of federal incentive programs to implement riparian

buffer contracts with private landowners. It convincingly describes the potential benefits

that could be added to previous riparian protection efforts by using existing federal

programs. Good detail on cost-sharing and coordination with other agencies is provided.

The project’s objective – to implement at least 36 riparian buffer agreements - is specific

and measurable. CREP plans and FSA requirements will provide monitoring of buffer

strip outcomes. This proposal will monitor the progress of implementing agreements.

ProjectID: 21016

Accelerate the Application of Integrated Fruit Management to Reduce the Risk of

Pesticide Pollution in Fifteenmile Sub-basin Orchards

Sponsor: Wy'East RC&D

Short Description:

Accelerate the implementation of Integrated Fruit Management in orchards that use new

generation pesticides and sprayer technology to reduce the risk of pollution to land and

aquatic resources from pesticides affecting salmon and steelhead.

Subbasin: Fifteenmile

Comments:

Fundable only if the proposers make a convincing case of benefits to fish and wildlife

and a closer tie to the Fish and Wildlife Program (FWP). The presentation made a better

case than the proposal and the proposers were forward thinking. The agriculture

experiment station should be a source of assistance for these proposers.

This proposal describes an approach to reducing non-point source pollution resulting

from the application of orchard pesticides. It is a problem relevant to the water quality

aspects of fish habitat. The proposal does a good job laying out objectives and

comprehensive tasks, and takes care to include criteria for success and timelines in the

methods. Adaptive management is included through explicit plans for modifications of

procedures. The proposal establishes connections to other non-FWP projects, but does

not tie the proposed work into other projects within the FWP.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

59

The proposal places an emphasis on collaboration with growers, outreach and education.

This is a real strength of the proposal. The main question has to do not with the relevance

of this work, but with who should pay for it. This might be more appropriate as part of a

more collaborative project that would include specific assessment of a potential problem

for resident and anadromous fish.

ProjectID: 21019

Fifteenmile Subbasin Water Right Acquisition Program

Sponsor: OWT

Short Description:

Acquire 2 cfs of existing Fifteenmile Creek Subbasin water rights on a voluntary basis

and transfer to instream water rights under Oregon state law; target acquisitions to

maximize fulfillment of habitat objectives for instream flows.

Subbasin: Fifteenmile

Comments:

Fundable only if a response is provided that describes how monitoring and evaluation

will be provided that accesses the benefits to fish and wildlife from the water acquisition.

This proposal was highly supported by the reviewers. It complements the other work in

the subbasin. The Oregon Water Trust has a track record in these acquisitions, and the

proposal demonstrates appropriate coordination with other agencies to ensure that the

rights acquired are beneficial to fish. As stated above, the monitoring and evaluation,

especially ecological aspects, needs to be strengthened and better explained and part of

the overall monitoring in this watershed. It may be that other agencies will accomplish

aspects of monitoring and evaluation, but the programs should be explicitly identified in

the proposal and endorsements from the agencies should be provided.

ProjectID: 199801900

Wind River Watershed Restoration

Sponsor: UCD,USFS,USGS-CRRL,WDFW

Short Description:

Restore habitat within the Wind River subbasin to support healthy populations of wild

steelhead

Subbasin: Wind

Comments:

Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. The project

anticipates Hemlock Dam removal and the restoration of considerable habitat to the

access of anadromous salmon. It is a large, ambitious, well-coordinated restoration

project, but the proposed project is deficient in evaluation and monitoring.

1. Despite progress in habitat restoration there is no evidence that fish numbers are

increasing.

2. Interannual variability will mask underlying change in the proposed monitoring

approach more than it would in an approach entailing comparison studies of treated

and untreated watersheds. In this subbasin (and elsewhere) the major limitation on
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

60

salmon productivity has been demonstrated to be in the smolt-adult life stage, and not

the egg-smolt stage, so it is necessary to incorporate life stage monitoring into the

plans. Such monitoring may not be necessary everywhere, but an index management

system should be included in a Basin-wide evaluation plan, i.e., collectively select

monitoring sites (watersheds) for comparison of rehabilitation treatment/no treatment

and consider ther response variables for intensive monitoring (e.g., smolts) versus

routine monitoring (e.g., snorkle counts of juveniles in representative sections). See

comments under General Issues. Nonetheless, it is wise to increase freshwater

capability and survivals. Can production from sections treated be compared to

untreated sections, including a before-and-after comparison?

3. The proposed costs for monitoring juvenile fish and smolts need to be further justified

by providing detail of the approach.

ProjectID: 21010

Feeding, growth, and smoltification of juvenile steelhead infested with the ciliated

protozoan, Heteropolaria lwoffi

Sponsor: USGS-CRRL, USFWS

Short Description:

Infestations of Heteropolaria lwoffi on the body, eyes, and gills of wild juvenile steelhead

may interfere with feeding success, growth, and smoltification, lowering parr to smolt

and smolt to adult survival of fish in the Wind River subbasin.

Subbasin: Wind

Comments:

Do not fund. A response is not warranted. Compelling evidence that the infestations are

limiting salmon production is lacking in that smolt production has increased over the

years that the infestation has been documented. There is no indication of the extent of the

infestation in salmon populations. There is no indication of lethality or of a proposed

study of lethality. There is no indication of the actions that might be taken if infestations

are limiting salmon productivity. This project would be better focused on the natural

populations rather than on laboratory studies (Why has there been infestation on parr, but

not on smolt?) An appropriate study would probably be accomplished in less than four

years, would be incorporated into regional fish pathology programs, and would be

pertinent to subbasin limiting factors. If in fact this is a significant health problem, a

different project should be proposed that focuses on the natural populations.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

61

ProjectID: 21024

Evaluate Hatchery Reform Principles

Sponsor: NMFS

Short Description:

Investigate implementation potential of conservation hatchery principles at production

hatchery scale using NATURES raceway habitat rearing, anti-predator conditioning, and

growth modulation in a statistical design allowing partitioning of effects.

Subbasin: Wind

Comments:

Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. Clarify and

resubmit in response review.

The uncertainty about the project design and the power analysis precludes us from

currently recommending funds for this proposal. The basin should consider what

evaluation standard should be applied to these comparative studies. For example, past

studies have examined survival for a short period or migration distance downstream.

However, the ultimate measure of success must be the return rate of adults. Modest

increases in juvenile survival won’t be a major gain in the Basin unless they lead to

substantially greater increases in SARs ... (e.g., a 25% increase in a 1% SAR is still only

1.25%; not enough to resolve our problems). Before any major changes in procedures are

endorsed, we need to be realistic about our expectations from these tools.

The design of the intended ‘experiment’ needs to be clarified, as the presentation of the

experimental design during the site visit was quite different than that described in the

proposal. Interactions were dropped (a mistake we think) and the power analysis was not

completely explained. The proposal (but not the presentation!) described a 2X2 treatment

experimental design that seems appropriate to examine the treatment effects of bottom

substrate and predator avoidance. The approach is also used to examine the effects of

controlled temperatures and water source (spring water) versus ambient temperatures and

river water. In many cases preliminary data support survival advantages by smolts reared

under one of the NATUREs environmental conditions. It will be most interesting to see

if those trends continue with a larger scale study and to try to quantify any survival

advantage of multiple factors and their interactions. There is a lot of interest in the region

to determine if NATUREs is a viable tool. The methods do not describe where detections

are to occur.

A long history of this project is described. Why has there been so little peer review of

primary results? Most publications seem to be reviews of the good ideas of NATUREs,

not publications of results. Why isn’t this group involved with Beckman and his

colleagues who have published pertinent results on growth patterns and SARs? Why

aren’t they part of this study's design team? Elements of NATUREs haven’t been studied

in designs that isolate effects and interactions. To date, NATUREs has been a potpourri

of gravel bottom, christmas trees, arbitrarily chosen culture densities, diets, etc.

Apparently, the only benefit has been darker coloration's protection immediately (hours)

after release in clear streams where birds are present. None of the rest of it has been
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

62

tested in isolation or interaction with other elements. So the design here is to test the

potpourri. We still won't know which element is significant.

Despite the concerns expressed above, this research proposal addresses timely and

important questions central to hatchery reform in the Columbia River Basin. The project

sponsors collectively have an impressive research and publication background – and have

been diligent about publishing results from many of their previous studies. The efficacy

of hatchery reform and the potential for reform that exists in many older production

facilities are critical questions in the basin. The sponsor’s commitment to rigorous

research and their willingness to seek peer-review scrutiny of this work is commendable.

One of the reviewers questioned whether Carson Hatchery is the best situation to test the

NATUREs theory; perhaps the new Nez Perce tribal hatchery, under construction, will be

a more appropriate facility.

ProjectID: 21009

Assess current and potential salmonid production in Rattlesnake Creek associated with

restoration efforts

Sponsor: UCD, YN, USGS

Short Description:

Address a unique opportunity to document habitat conditions and fish population status

within the Rattlesnake Creek watershed prior to major habitat restoration activities and

before Condit Dam removal and the reintroduction of anadromous salmonids.

Subbasin: White Salmon

Comments:

Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. This appears to

be a good opportunity for proposers to take full advantage of the opportunity to study the

anadromous – resident fish interactions with the removal of the dam. This is a very well

written proposal that presents good justification for the documentation of pre-restoration

work and the benefit of that work in guiding the direction of restoration. The proposal is

comprehensive, including a wide range of tasks. The discussion of limiting factors was,

however, weak and generic and did not demonstrate a strong understanding of the

system.

Potential information transfer needs to be better described. Costs for assessment and

prescription appear very high, compared to other areas, and need fuller justification. The

proposed cutthroat trout survey work seemed redundant with that proposed by proposal

#21012.

Also, what are the risks to the cutthroat trout population and other resident salmonids

following dam removal, and how will those risks be dealt with?
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

63

ProjectID: 21033

White Salmon River Watershed Enhancement Project

Sponsor: UCD

Short Description:

A comprehensive, five year plan aimed to improve fish habitat, riparian and upslope

watershed conditions, and land stewardship through direct restorative actions,

cooperative work with stakeholders, and promoting education and citizen involvement.

Subbasin: White Salmon

Comments:

Fundable. Further ISRP response review is not needed. They addressed the ISRP

concerns from the FY2000 proposal review. This proposal presents a convincing case for

the benefits of restoring habitat in the White Salmon watershed, and for the long-term

benefits of the education and outreach accomplished through the formation of a

watershed council and technical committee. The proposal describes good community

involvement with a range of activities – watershed council meetings, trash cleanup,

symposium.

Proposers should carefully plan evaluate their M&E (and be prepared to defend its value

in future reviews). Specifically, they should improve their monitoring, especially of

water quality, so that it will not continue to be done "automatically" but will be designed

to be problem-oriented.

Reviewer Comments on the Klickitat Subbasin and the Klickitat Production

Project (KFP)

The Klickitat River is one of the longest undammed rivers (95mile long) remaining in the

Pacific northwest and is the largest drainage basin (1,350 square miles) within the Gorge

Province. The mainstem Klickitat contains two passage impediments for salmon and

steelhead. One in the lower river at Lyle Falls (river mile RM 2.2) and the second upriver at Castile Falls (RM 64), but neither of these are blockages to fish passage. Using

Mitchell Act funds, the Klickitat Hatchery (RM 42.5) and fishways at Lyle Falls (RM

2.2) were constructed in 1952. The lower couple of miles in the mainstem pass through a

narrow rock cut and provide one of the few remaining dipnet fishing opportunties for

Tribal fishers in the Columbia Basin. “It holds special significance as the one remaining

site where Yakama fishers have the opportunity to fish year around using traditional

dipnet and jumpnet gears.”

The watershed supports a diversity of fish and wildlife. Spring chinook, summer and

winter steelhead are endemic to the system. Summer chinook have been detected via

electrophoretic surveys (Marshall 2000, in review) but status uncertain. Fall chinook

were not know in the basin but lower Columbia River “Tule” stock were introduced in

1946. Fall chinook production was switched to upper river Brights in 1986. Similarly,

coho salmon were not present until the early 1950s when lower Columbia River hatchery

fish were released. Resident trouts in the Basin include rainbow, resident and adfluvial

bull trout in upper basin, brook trout and resident and coastal cutthroat. However,
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

64

resident cutthroat may not exist in the Basin and the present status of the coastal cutthroat

is unknown. Brook trout were introduced in the late 1970s and now naturally reproduce

in the upper river tributaries. Pacific lamprey are known to utilize the river up to RM57.

The Subbasin summary identified several threatened or endangered wildlife species

within the Klickitat watershed, including Sandhill crane, Western Pond turtle, Oregon

spotted frog, Western Grey squirrel, Bald eagle, Northern spotted owl, Canada Lynx,

Peregrine falcon, Mardon skipper (small butterfly).

Hatchery production in the Klickitat only involves the one hatchery, but production of

fall chinook and coho salmon are brought in from outside facilities. Hatchery HGMPs

were provided for spring chinook, fall chinook, and coho salmon but not for steelhead.

These plans were incomplete and the steelhead plan needs to be provided given the

importance the proponents placed on supplementing production of this endemic species.

Levels of production identified in the plans were:

1) spring chinook release targest 500,000 to 600,000 yearlings from an endemic stock to

be used to supplement natural production,

2) ”Bright” fall chinook releases of about 4 million smolts intended for mitigation of

Tribal and non-tribal harvest; no escapement goal was stated for the return of these fish to

natural spawning areas,

3) coho salmon release of 1.35 million smolts from Lewis R hatchery and to be

acclimated in ponds along the Klickitat systems, production is intend for harvest

mitigation and no escapement goal was provided.

Although no HGMP was provided, our understanding is that hatchery production of

summer steelhead will be intended to supplement natural production of these fish.

Further, although comments were made about the value placed on summer chinook, no

reference was made about enhancement of this race.

While the subbasin summary was important as background material for this review, the

review committee did identify several topics that would have strengthened the

presentation. For example, the season hydrograph, run timing of the races, basic data for

stock assessments (catch, escapements, age structure), the basis of management goals,

and a basis for prioritizing habitat issues. In the absence of quantitative stock

assessments, the proposals fail to justify technically the need for the projects presented.

For example, what is the basis for the numbers of hatchery fish to be released?

There was not evidence of a Watershed Council presence in the subbasin and a watershed

assessment plan was not incorporated in the summary. As a comparison, we note that the

Hood River basin had a strong and capable watershed council presence.

In reviewing these proposals and during interviews, the review committee was concerned

about the use of the term “supplementation” which was important in justifying several

proposals. The understanding by the Yakama Nation of “supplementation” seems at

variance with the orthodox definition, i.e. ‘jump starting natural reproduction of a native

stock by temporary hatchery reproduction.’ Our understanding of ‘supplementation’ in
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

65

the Klickatat proposals seems to be the use hatchery production to support harvests while

encouraging natural spawning in an aggregate population of hatchery- and wildspawners. Again this interpretation is strengthened due to a lack of management goals

for the natural population. This leads to the paradoxical tactic of increasing spring

chinook smolt releases — the apparent rationale being that ‘in order to maintain present

harvest and have natural spawning too we’ll have to increase smolt releases and rely on a

predictable SAR consistent with those of recent history”. Such a tactic fails to consider

density dependence between salmonid smolts (in the river, Bonneville pool, or lower

Columbia River) as a limiting factor on the productivity of natural populations. The

review panel would encourage the proponents to establish their management goals, phase

in hatchery production, and evaluate how to achieve their apparent goals of sustaining

catch in the river (established at a sustainable terminal harvest rate), and to develop the

monitoring programs necessary to learn from their efforts.

One specific point of confusion during our discussions was the genetic relatedness of

hatchery and natural populations of spring chinook and steelhead presently in the

Klickitat. Following review of material from A. Marshall and C. Busack (WDFW,

Olympia, WA) our understanding of these relationships are:

1) Klickitat spring chinook are genetically different from summer chinook and fall

chinook sampled from the Klickitat river;

2) Klickitat spring chinook sampled from the hatchery are different from those sampled

from the natural spawners. As a comparison, hatchery springs versus natural springs

were as different as summer chinook versus fall chinook;

3) Naturally spawning Klickitat summer steelhead consistently differed from Skamania

Hatchery steelhead sampled. Klickitat summer steelhead originally contributed to the

development of the Skamania steelhead broodstock, but differences exist between

them; and

4) Sampling of Klickitat winter steelhead has been inadequate for conclusions.

Point (2) differs from a statement in the subbasin summary (page 7) but that statement

was based on a 1990 report.

Recommendation on the four YKFP Artificial Production projects:

ProjectID: 198811525

ProjectID: 199701725

ProjectID: 198812025

ProjectID: 199506325

Recommendation: Fundable only if response adequately address the ISRP’s concerns.

Resubmit proposals on KFP see comments.

The review panel is fully aware that the KFP is being isolated from the YKFP to

accommodate the provincial review process and that the proposal organization used is

consistent with the four budgetary items included in the proposal template (Part 1).

However, from the perspective of a scientific review, it would more informative if the
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

66

Klickitat Fisheries Program was structured by major program activity rather than budget

item. In the present structure, the four interrelated proposals don’t allow for assessment

of individual project activities and progress, since aspects of major technical programs or

activities are included in more than one proposal and can not be reviewed as one

comprehensive activity. For example, the M&E proposal includes activities for fish

production or habitat programs, but the association of M&E costs associated with one

technical activity may not be evident.

As examples of core scientific programs, the KFP may be grouped into Stock Assessment

and Production, Habitat Assessment and Restoration, and a core administrative program

that included administrative support, data management and GIS staff, watershed

assessments, and policy development. Within each of the programs, the costs for each

budget component in Part 1 could be specified and objectives, hypotheses, methods,

results, and future proposal requests combined for a comprehensive and informative

proposal.

Sub-programs within each major program may facilitate administration but the activities

within any sub-program would have to be consistent with the objectives of the parent

program. For example, the Klickitat Hatchery could be included under a Salmon

Assessment and Production program but the production goals of the hatchery program

and data for monitoring would be consistent with an overall goal of sustained natural

production, achieving spawning goals, and meeting catch objectives established by the

managers. Frequently in the present proposals, the rationale for activities was that some

other planning document, etc required them. The scientific interest, however, is how a

proponent proposes to meet an obligation in a technically sound manner, how to monitor

and assess, and what progress has been evident.

In the absence of a set of technically coherent proposals, the review panel is required to

interpret the intention or value of major program cost. This is obviously not a desirable

situation or basis for allocation of funding over three years. Consequently, this panel

recommends that the YFP restructure these proposals and clarify actual project activities

are associated with funds requested.

It is notable that in the ISRP’s June 15, 1999 report, they recommended that the entire set

of proposals included in the umbrella program (20510) should be reorganized so that the

scientific approach to achieving the stated objectives could be evaluated. This

recommendation applied to all proposals in the Umbrella (including projects 8811525,

8812025, 9506325, and 9701325, which are in this response review). In addition, the

ISRP listed specific questions or concerns for each project. The funding recommendation

at that time was to fund at an appropriate base level until a programmatic review can be

completed.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

67

ProjectID: 198811525

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Design and Construction

Sponsor: YN

Short Description:

Design/Construction:

1. Klickitat: O & M facility and Lyle Trap

Subbasin: Klickitat

Comments:

Recommendation for the set of KFP proposals: Fundable only if the response

adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. Resubmit proposals on KFP see comments.

The decision has apparently been made earlier on the Lyle Falls fishway construction,

this proposal completes the planning stage towards construction, but also includes

construction cost. The possible long-term benefits appear to justify the high cost, but

further investigation on feasibility is justified (see project 21004). From a scientific

perspective, it is necessary to conduct the research on fish passage (as in #21004) before

investing these funds in construction. If you build it, they may not come.

ProjectID: 198812025

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) Management, Data and Habitat (Klickitat

Only)

Sponsor: YN

Short Description:

This proposal provides support for Yakama Nation policy, management and

administrative activities related to all YKFP operations in the Klickitat River Basin,

including all M & E, O & M and Design and Construction activities.

Subbasin: Klickitat

Comments:

Recommendation for the set of KFP proposals: Fundable only if the response

adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. Resubmit proposals on KFP see comments.

This proposal is basically for program management and facilitation and costs were

estimated as 30% of past funds in the YKFP. This proposal contains some very strong

statements about program objectives. For example, the technical background states that

“The YKFP is a supplementation project designed to use artificial propagation in an

attempt to maintain or increase natural production while maintaining long-term fitness of

the target population and keeping ecological and genetic impacts to non-target species

within specified limits.” The paper then cites RASP (1991).

Under Management Philosophy, it states:

“The YN employs an adaptive management policy in order to achieve YKFP goals and to

protect the basin’s fishery resources from unforeseen, adverse impacts. Adaptive
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

68

management is the conscious decision in favour of action designed to increase

understanding as opposed to inaction in the face of uncertainty.”

Technically, we fully support such statements but how are they implemented in the

proposals presented? This situation may exemplify the base for the panels above

recommendation to re-structure the program along lines of activities.

In general, however, this proposal is not amenable to scientific review.

ProjectID: 199506325

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring And Evaluation (Klickitat Only)

Sponsor: YN

Short Description:

Collect and integrate baseline information on habitat, demographics and life history to

design comprehensive enhancement plans. Monitor production, harvest, gentic and

ecological impacts of Klickitat programs to guide adaptive management.

Subbasin: Klickitat

Comments:

Recommendation for the set of KFP proposals: Fundable only if the response

adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. Resubmit proposals on KFP see comments.

Among the four projects within the YFP this proposal provided the best description of the

project need and technical background. Task and objective descriptions were good, but it

was not clear whether the assumptions were assumptions that were being tested by the

project or assumptions that will not be tested but are necessary to infer from the project’s

results. The proposal encompasses a large number of objectives, but it is not always clear

how they fit together, or were chosen. The proposal lists but does not develop an

overarching strategy to explain why these particular activities were chosen or how all of

these results are to be integrated to make an assessment of overall success/failure. The

Panel again suggests that these limitations reflect the structure of the four proposals.

There is, however, greater need to consider uncertainties and risks associated with current

low survivals (are populations viable?). The monitoring costs are very high, for a long

period, and do not include a control/treatment experimental approach. How is this

consistent with the commitment to adaptive management?
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

69

ProjectID: 199701725

Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project Operation and Maintenance (Klickitat Only)

Sponsor: YN

Short Description:

Operation and maintenance of YKFP facilities in the Klickitat subbasin.

Subbasin: Klickitat

Comments:

Recommendation for the set of KFP proposals: Fundable only if the response

adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. Resubmit proposals on KFP see comments.

The need for O & M funds is clearly an essential part of the overall program but this

proposal provided only minimal background or technical detail. Substantial increases in

program cost can be expected if the Lyle Falls facility proceeds, the Castile Falls passage

is undertaken, and KFP assumes management of the Klickitat hatchery. We noted that

out-year costs for operation do not yet include additional cost for FTE’s.

This proposal is again not amenable to scientific review. The budget can not be assessed

by activity since costs were not attributed to objectives in section 6/10. Note that costs

for this proposal begin in 2002.

ProjectID: 199705600

Lower Klickitat Riparian and In-Channel Habitat Enhancement Project

Sponsor: YN

Short Description:

Subbasin: Klickitat

Comments:

Fundable only if response adequately address the ISRP’s concerns; e.g. activities and

costs are specified and expected benefits associated with these actions are projected. The

panel recognizes that a lower level of funding may be necessary to conduct this initial

work.

This proposal provided useful background information about the general problems

affecting fish in the Klickitat watershed and a good general description of the need for the

different project elements. But while it provides the technical background, rationale, and

past history of activities, it provides little information on what will be done with the

requested funds (for example, the major cost is for sub-contracts, but for what?). The

objectives stated are very general and there was not indication about how priority

activities would be determined. Beyond the general descriptions, the proposal does not

offer a rationale for how the particular restoration activities were identified. At present,

this proposal appears to be a placeholder (for $$) for projects that were not justified in the

proposal. What is the budget based on and how do these M&E costs relate to those in

project #199506325?
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

70

The absence of a Watershed Assessment Plan, as identified in our general comments,

may have contributed to this very general presentation. Further, there is no information

presented on the current stage of progression of existing programs.

It is difficult to reconcile support for ongoing restoration work (for which no rationale is

given) in the absence of a comprehensive watershed assessment. If watershed assessment

still needs to be completed then how can specific restoration measures be identified and a

budget developed? If results of prior assessment work are available, then they should be

presented to provide a rationale for the ongoing habitat work. It is not clear what level of

watershed assessment has been done in the basin and how the results have been

incorporated in proposal. Watershed inventory and monitoring are referred to in the

objectives but a completed assessment was not identified.

The monitoring design and performance measures are not clear. How will success be

determined? The adequacy of the budget cannot be evaluated because the limiting factors

and priority restoration needs (and therefore reasonable costs) are not defined. The use of

land acquisition is potentially very important but was not described in any detail.

ProjectID: 199405400

Bull trout population assessment in the Columbia River Gorge, WA.

Sponsor: WDFW

Short Description:

Determining the status of bull trout populations and developing and implementing

protection and recovery plans will be critical for their continued survival. This porposal

provides the basic data to develop these plans.

Subbasin: Klickitat

Comments:

Fundable. No further ISRP response review is needed. This project applies an agreed

sampling protocol and is an integral part of a broader inventory of Bull trout. Given the

listing of this species and the difficulty in assessing their status, this project must be

considered a high priority.

Contrary to the project number, this is a new program begun with BPA funds in March

2000. Columbia River populations of Bull trout were listed as “threatened” under the

ESA in 1998, and bull trout in the White Salmon and Klickitat as distinct sub-populations

within the Columbia population segment. Obviously there is an understandable

requirement to conduct surveys such as these and this proposal is part of a larger

inventory, the data from which is all be collated via the Rocky Mountain Research

Station. Sampling methods apply an agreed AFS protocol developed to assess Bull trout

due to their fragmented and small populations. Objectives of the program were portrayed

in a logical clear sequence and each has a stated task and method. Within the Basin, the

proposal provides good evidence of interaction with agencies.

While we support this investigation and the application of a sampling protocol, the nature

of bull trout populations and the apparent difficulties in locating populations lead us to
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

71

discuss two additional suggestions. If the population are fragmented and small,

encountering them during a snorkel survey (protocol method) is likely to be a rare event.

However, the investigators could experiment with low-light videography at fixed

locations/habitats were bull trout were known to exist or are suspected. Such a fixed

station could greatly increase the numbers of hours sampled as opposed to the distance

covered during a snorkel survey. Secondly, the review panel heard of two bull trout

recoveries in cool water refugees along the north shore of the Bonneville Pool. These

observations were from sport fishermen who by chance encountered these fish. If these

investigators need to locate spawning and rearing populations of bull trout, could a

targeted program to net or sport fish for adfluvial bull trout in these cool refugees provide

a means to capture pre-adults for radio-tagging? Shore-based fixed monitors could detect

entrance of the tagged fish and portable monitors could subsequently be used to monitor

distribution within rivers. Given the difficulty in detecting this species, we recommend

that the investigators examine several means to assess their status.

A significant concern identified by the review panel was the presence of brook trout in

the Klickitat River and the possible competition and/or introgression with bull trout. We

strongly recommend this aspect of investigation be incorporated in the genetic analyses

and habitat surveys.

ProjectID: 21004

Determination of difficult passage areas by examining swimming activity of upriver

migrating salmon implanted with EMG transmitters

Sponsor: PNNL

Short Description:

Examine the swimming activity and energy use of salmon and steelhead as they ascend

areas of poor fish passage (Lyle and Castile Falls) to identify areas which provide special

difficulty.

Subbasin: Klickitat

Comments:

Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. The reviewers

strongly support a 1 to 3 year program. This project is innovative. The proposal would be

appropriate for submittal in the innovative process, as is, because of the proposed

sequencing of actions it is not well integrated with the subbasin effort.

While this is a very brief proposal, it is innovative and provides an opportunity to

critically examine the fish passage problems identified in the Klickitat River. The stated

objectives are actually tasks, rather than target achievements for the work; and are very

limited relative to the potential information to be gained from these tagged salmon

(probably because the proposal is submitted for only one year). The review panel

supports the one-year examination, but would strongly recommend re-submission of the

proposal to include funds for tracking the fish up-river. Such a program would identify

rate of movement, holding areas, and ultimately spawning locations.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

72

In a logical progression of project development, however, there is an obvious concern

about the submission of this project and the KFP request for $3.2 million to build a

fishway. If there is concern about the degree of fish passage problems in the Klickitat,

then this work should be undertaken before KFP proceeds with major expenditures on

fish passage, etc. However, if at Lyle Falls, the decision has been made to proceed with

construction of the fishway and broodstock capture site, then this investigation could be

moved up-river to Castile Falls. From our discussions, we concluded that there was a

definite need for this project to be more integrated with the KFP projects. For example, if

the results of this study show that passage is not a problem at this site, will the

construction projects at the falls be altered?

ProjectID: 21026

Inventory and Restore Beaver and Beaver Habitats

Sponsor: YN

Short Description:

Inventory and restore beaver populations and habitats to the upper portion of the subbasin

to restore the array of functions that beaver provide for the watershed.

Subbasin: Klickitat

Comments:

Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP concerns. This proposal

should not be funded as an individual project. This should be one of the tools among the

suite of tools used for watershed rehabilitation in the subbasin. Consider integrating this

proposal with #199705600 Riparian and In-Channel Habitat Enhancement Project.

From the perspective of ecosystem function and as a means to restore riparian wetland

function along streams, this is an interesting proposal. This proposal does a reasonable

job outlining why the restoration of beaver habitat would be beneficial to watershed

function, but its approach is less clear. The primary uncertainty is how it builds on

previous beaver restoration work (earlier projects listed), what it will do to complement

existing work, and why beaver have not re-colonized naturally. The objectives and

methods need to be presented in more detail. For example, how will the historical

database be used, and what are the limits on the relevance of historical data under current

conditions? How will the prioritization of habitat restoration be done? How will the

results of these introductions be assessed and against what comparative basis?

The review panel questioned the reason for introduction since the salmonid most likely to

benefit from these habitats are coho salmon ... which do not use the upper Klickitat

drainage. Further, it is very possible that beaver ponds and the associated habitat would

encourage brook trout expansion which is likely not desirable.

Finally, why is beaver restoration related to “fully mitigating for wildlife losses from

hydropower”? The loss of beaver is not likely to be closely associated with the

hydrosystem, is this proposal then appropriate to this funding source? If the reintroduction is proposed as an ecosystem restoration study or technique, then we can

accept that argument. However, if beavers are a means to restore riparian wetlands and

store water, then the cost of such programs are appropriately included in the KFP habitat
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

73

restoration projects. The two proposals will be linked already since mapping and habitat

assessment are needed to determine sites for introduction.

ProjectID: 21027

Inventory and Assess Amphibian Populations in the Klickitat Subbasin

Sponsor: YN

Short Description:

Conduct an initial assessment of amphibian populations primarily within the previously

unsurveyed Yakama Reservation. Use data to identify critical habitat areas and establish

baseline for effectiveness monitoring of restoration efforts.

Subbasin: Klickitat

Comments:

Fundable for 3 years, instead of the five years proposed, but only if the response

adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. They need to define the sampling procedure in

more detail and use established protocols.

This is an innovative proposal that outlines a logical sequence of tasks to achieve the

population assessments and develop ecological (riparian) indicator species. Objectives

are presented in a logical sequence and involve the establishment of sampling protocols

to establish repeatable surveys. Some reviewers felt these protocols were established but

during the stated consultations with “experts” these sampling processes will be resolved.

There is a laudable amount of scientific consultation and review throughout. The plan to

send annual reports out for scientific review is excellent but we also suggest a definite

plan to present results at meetings and through journal articles, rather than “may be.”

To develop amphibians as ecological indicators, consideration must also be given as to

what “ecosystem” they are indicative of? If the interest is in indicators of quality riparian

wetlands, then what are the amphibians being measured against and how will standards

for the indicators be developed? If amphibians are to be used as indicators of some

higher order ecosystem, for example, spring chinook in the upper Klickitat, then the

investigator must establish that the amphibian species are truly indicators of the

environment important to spring chinook. We can not simply presume that a species is

an indicator for the habitat needs or status of another species, demonstrating these

linkages are essential in establishing the use of indicator species.
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

74

ProjectID: 21028

Klickitat Watershed and Habitat Enhancement Project

Sponsor: YN

Short Description:

This project will compliment ongoing habitat enhancement projects throughout the

Klickitat basin by protecting parcels of high-quality habitat and restoring degraded

upland and riparian habitat via acquisition, conservation easements and long-term lease.

Subbasin: Klickitat

Comments:

No decision, this project is not amenable to scientific review. This could have significant

fish and wildlife benefits but without knowing the potential purchases it is impossible to

know if the potential will be realized. Further, the presenter noted that the project was

not integrated with the watershed assessment and habitat rehabilitation efforts in the

basin. Support for this type of proposal for land acquisition is more a policy decision

than science, but given that:

a) the proposal has not been integrated with other Klickitat proposals (as noted above),

b) it lacks specific actions to evaluate, and

c) if this panel needs to be consistent in providing recommendations across proposals; we

would advise NOT to fund this proposal on the basis of this ISRP review process.

The proponents need to reference a watershed assessment and described a fully

developed plan with subbasin level goals and objectives that justify the purchases.

If this trust fund principle was applied across all the basins it would use up all the BPA

funds. A notable benefit to this process appears to be that in the Yakima this approach

has drawn in cost-sharing contributions. This is not science but land management;

nevertheless, likely an important aspect of the rehabilitation work required. There is

clearly merit in having funds available to opportunistically purchase land when it

becomes available, but should this advantage be provided to only one watershed?
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

75

Attachment 1 - ISRP Review Criteria

1. Technical and Scientific Background

Is there an identified problem related to fish and wildlife in the Basin? Does the proposal adequately

explain (with references) the technical background and logical need to address the problem to benefit fish

or wildlife? (0=no explanation; 1=poorly defined problem; 5= adequately defined problem; 10=highly

persuasive, clearly defined problem) SCORE (0-10) 

2. Rationale and Significance to Subbasin Summary and Regional Programs

Does the proposal demonstrate a clear relationship to specific objectives of the subbasin summary and

specific parts of the Fish and Wildlife Program, NMFS Biological Opinions or other plans? (0=no

explanation; 1=poorly defined problem, not associated with Programs, 5= significance to subbasin

summary and regional plan; 10=well associated with a high priority in a subbasin summary and regional

plan.) SCORE (0-10) 

3. Relationships to Other Projects

Does the proposal put the work into the context of other work funded in the FWP and described in the

subbasin summary? Does this proposal include collaborative efforts with similar projects, even if not part

of an overall joint plan? If this proposal is intended as an integrated component of a set of studies, is the

rationale for that set and any time sequencing explained and documented? (0=no effort to document or

collaborate, 5=minimal linkage or rationale, 10=strong collaborative effort with logical allocation of effort

and linkages described, or full rationale why linkages are not appropriate).

SCORE (0-10) 

4. Project History (for ongoing projects)

Is the history of the project adequately described, including the original need for the project? Does the

proposal demonstrate that past actions have resulted in achieving project objectives? Has there been

adequate monitoring of project effectiveness? Are these results described in biologically measurable terms

and if not does the proposal describe why not and provide other results (e.g. peer reviewed articles)? Does

the project describe the adaptive management implications from past results whether successes or failures?

Is the continued need for the work justified? Are methods and procedures for collection of past monitoring

data (i.e., meta-data) adequately described? Are past results (data, analysis, etc.) adequately communicated

or distributed for benefit of the region? (0=no effort to document results; 1=minimal effort to document

what appear to be poor results with no description of management implications; 5=some effort to document

results, management implications, and some potential for benefits; 10=strong reporting and evaluation of

results which have guided project direction with demonstrated or a strong potential for benefits to fish and

wildlife.)

NEW PROJECT (SECTION NOT APPLICABLE)____ SCORE (0-10) 

5. Proposal Objectives, Tasks, and Methods

A. Objectives

Does the proposal have clearly defined and measurable objectives (whenever possible in terms of

measurable benefits to fish and wildlife) with specific timelines? Are the objectives tied to those in the

subbasin summary and FWP? (0=no explanation; 1=poorly explained with poor match to subbasin

objectives, explained as tasks where could be in biologically measurable terms; 5=adequately explained in

terms of measurable benefits to fish and wildlife with match to subbasin objectives and with timelines;

10=clearly explained with close match to subbasin objectives and when possible stated in biologically

measurable terms with specific timelines.)

SCORE (0-10) 

B. Methods

Are the methods adequately described and appropriate, i.e., based on sound scientific principles? Does the

project employ the best available scientific information and techniques? Is the project or experimental

design reasonable and defensible in techniques and resources? (0=no explanation or scientifically unsound;
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

76

1=poorly explained or poor techniques; 5=adequately explained, sound techniques; 10=clearly explained

with best available, or even innovative, scientific information and techniques)

SCORE (0-10) 

C. Monitoring and Evaluation

Does the proposal include provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results (in the context of the

objectives) that apply at the project level (whether the M&E is provided in this proposal or a directly

related project)? (0=no explanation; 1=poorly explained, will not allow for determination if the project met

its objectives; 5=adequately explained and will allow for determination if project met its objectives;

10=clearly explained, will allow for determination of success or failure of the project, inform adaptive

management decisions, and be applicable to other efforts) SCORE (0-10) 

6. Facilities, Equipment, and Personnel

Are the facilities and personnel appropriate to achieve the objectives and timeframe milestones? (0=no

explanation; 1=poorly described or inadequate; 3=reasonable; 5=exceptionally unique personnel and

facilities for the work) SCORE (0-5) 

7. Information Transfer (see Part I. Section 1 and methods section)

Does the proposal include explicit plans for how the information, technology, etc. from this project will be

disseminated and used? Are methods and procedures for collection of monitoring data (i.e., meta-data)

adequately described? Are plans for release and long-term storage of data and meta-data adequate? (0=no

explanation; 1=poorly explained and inadequate dissemination given the importance of the information

generated; 3=adequate plan for the information generated; 5=excellent plan for the information generated,

e.g. included in usable format on regional website, peer review journal)

SCORE (0-5) 

Benefit to Fish and Wildlife (Proposal as a whole)

Will the proposed project benefit target species/indicator populations, as an individual project or as a

critical link in a set of projects? Will the benefits persist over the long-term and not be compromised by

other activities in the basin? (0=no benefit; 5=likely benefits but short-term; 10=some benefits that will

persist; 15=demonstrated significant benefits that will persist over the long-term)

SCORE (0-15) ________

Will the project effect other non-target species? Does the project demonstrate that all “reasonable”

precautions have been taken, based on the best available science, to not adversely affect habitat/populations

of native biota? (-10=adverse effect and precautions not taken; 0= no adverse effect; or potential adverse

effects and adequate precautions proposed; 5=demonstrated benefits to non-target species, habitat,

populations.) SCORE (-10 to 5) ___________

TOTAL SCORE: Existing Project _____ of 100 New Project ____ of 90

Consistency with Power Act Amendment Criteria:

1) SOUND SCIENCE PRINCIPLES (all proposal) (YES/NO) ______

2) CONSISTENT WITH PROGRAM (criterion 2) (YES/NO) ______

3) BENEFIT TO FISH AND WILDLIFE (all proposal) (YES/NO) ______

4) CLEARLY DEFINED OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOME (criterion 5a) (YES/NO) ______

5) PROVISION FOR M&E OF RESULTS (criterion 5c) (YES/NO) ______
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

Table of Proposals - see page 4 for background on recommendations and score level (1 = high score; 2 =

medium; 3 = low).

77

Table of Proposals with ISRP Preliminary Recommendations,

Indication if Response Is Needed, and Score Level. Sorted by

Province, then Project Number. Includes Page Index.

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin Preliminary

ISRP Rec.

Response

Needed

Score

Level

Page

The Inter-Mountain Province

21002 Early life history and

survival of adfluvial

rainbow trout in the San

Poil River Basin

PNNL San Poil Fundable No 1 44

21003 Upper Columbia Subbasin

Native Rainbow Population

Study

WT InterMountainDo not fund No 3 11

21006 Characterize and Assess

Wildlife-Habitat Types and

Stuctural Conditions for

Sub-Basins within the Inter

Mountain Ecoprovince

NHI InterMountainFundable only if

response is

adequate.

Yes 2 12

21008 Evaluation of the Banks

Lake Fishery

WDFW Lake

Roosevelt

Fundable No 1 35

21017 Implement Wildlife Habitat

Protection and Restoration

on the Coeur d'Alene

Indian Reservation:

Hangman Watershed.

Cd'A Spokane Fundable only if

response is

adequate.

Yes 1 39

21018 Implement Fisheries

Enhancement on the

Coeur d'Alene Indian

Reservation: Hangman

Creek

Cd'A Spokane Fundable only if

response is

adequate.

Yes 1 40

21020 Monitor and Enhance the

Lakes and Streams of the

Spokane Indian

Reservation

STOI Lake

Roosevelt

Fundable only if

response is

adequate.

Yes 2 36

21021 Ford Hatchery

Improvement, Operation

And Maintenance

WDFW Lake

Roosevelt

Fundable No 1 32

21022 Evaluate Fish Habitat on

the Middle Spokane / Little

Spokane Rivers

Spokane

County

Public

Works

Spokane Do not fund No 3 38

21023 Determine causes of mule

deer population declines in

the IM Columbia Basin: a

test of the "apparent

competition " hypothesis

WSU InterMountainFundable only if

response is

adequate.

Yes 2 14

21025 Intermountain Province

Resident Fish Symposium

LRF InterMountainFundable No 1 16
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

Table of Proposals - see page 4 for background on recommendations and score level (1 = high score; 2 =

medium; 3 = low).

78

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin Preliminary

ISRP Rec.

Response

Needed

Score

Level

Page

21029 A cooperative approach

to identifying the role of

forage quality in

affecting physical

condition....of mule deer

in north central

Washington.

WDFW InterMountainFundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 2 15

21030 Forest Carnivore

Surveys for Spokane

Subbasin

WDFW Spokane Do not fund No 3 41

21031 Land Use Analyses of

Spokane County

WDFW Spokane Do not fund No 3 41

21032 Eastern Washington

Survey for Townsend's

big-eared bat

WDFW InterMountainDo not fund No 3 13

21034 Colville Tribes Restore

Habitat for Sharp-tailed

Grouse

CCTFWDLake

Roosevelt,

Lake Rufus

Woods,

San Poil

Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 1 17

21035 Phalon Lake Native

Redband Rainbow trout

Trap Construction and O

& M

WDFW Lake

Roosevelt

Do not fund No 3 18

198503800 Colville Tribal Fish

Hatchery

CCT Lake

Roosevelt,

Lake Rufus

Woods

Fundable No 1 24

199001800 Evaluate Rainbow

Trout/Habitat

Improvements Of

Tributaries To Lake

Roosevelt

CCT San Poil Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 1 42

199104600 Spokane Tribal

Hatchery (Galbraith

Springs) Operation and

Maintenance

STOI Lake

Roosevelt

Fundable No 1 25

199104700 Sherman Creek

Hatchery Operations

and Maintenance

WDFW Lake

Roosevelt

Fundable No 1 29

199106200 Spokane Tribe of

Indians Wildlife

Mitigation Project

STOI Lake

Roosevelt

Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 1 32

199204800 Hellsgate Big Game

Winter Range Operation

And Maintenance

Project

CCTFWDLake

Roosevelt,

Lake Rufus

Woods

Fundable No 1 33
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

Table of Proposals - see page 4 for background on recommendations and score level (1 = high score; 2 =

medium; 3 = low).

79

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin Preliminary

ISRP Rec.

Response

Needed

Score

Level

Page

199404300 Lake Roosevelt

Fisheries Evaluation

Program

STOI Lake

Roosevelt,

Lake Rufus

Woods

Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 3 27

199500900 Rainbow Trout Net Pen

Rearing Project

LRDA Lake

Roosevelt

Fundable No 1 29

199501100 Chief Joseph Kokanee

Enhancement Project

CCT San Poil,

Lake Rufus

Woods

Fundable No 1 42

199502700 Develop and Implement

Recovery Plan for

Depressed Lake

Roosevelt White

Sturgeon Populations.

STOI Lake

Roosevelt

Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 2 22

199502800 Restore Moses Lake

Recreational Fishery

WDFW Lake

Roosevelt

Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 3 30

199506700 Colville Tribes

Performance Contract

for Continuing

Acquisition

CCTFWDLake

Roosevelt

Fundable No 1 33

199800300 Spokane Tribe of

Indians Wildlife

Operations and

Maintenance

STOI Lake

Roosevelt

Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 1 34

The Columbia River Gorge Province

21001 Fifteenmile Creek

Riparian Fencing /

Phsyical stream Survey

Project

ODFW Fifteenmile Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 2 56

21004 Determination of difficult

passage areas by

examining swimming

activity of upriver

migrating salmon

implanted with EMG

transmitters

PNNL Klickitat Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 2 71

21005 Characterize and

Assess Wildlife-Habitat

Types and Stuctural

Conditions for SubBasins within the

Columbia Gorge

Ecoprovince

NHI Columbia

Gorge

Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 2 45
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

Table of Proposals - see page 4 for background on recommendations and score level (1 = high score; 2 =

medium; 3 = low).

80

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin Preliminary

ISRP Rec.

Response

Needed

Score

Level

Page

21009 Assess current and

potential salmonid

production in

Rattlesnake Creek

associated with

restoration efforts

UCD, YN,

USGS

White

Salmon

Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 1 62

21010 Feeding, growth, and

smoltification of juvenile

steelhead infested with

the ciliated protozoan,

Heteropolaria lwoffi

USGSCRRL,

USFWS

Wind Do not fund No 3 60

21011 Assess the Current

Status and Biotic

Integrity of the Resident

Fish Assemblage in

Bonneville Reservoir

USGS/CR

RL

Bonneville

Reservoir

Do not fund No 3 47

21012 Evaluate Status of

Coastal Cutthroat Trout

in the Columbia River

Basin above Bonneville

Dam

USGSCRRLColumbia

Gorge

Do not fund No 3 44

21013 Western Pond Turtle

Recovery - Columbia

River Gorge

WDFW Columbia

Gorge

Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 2 47

21014 Mitigate Streambank

Sediment Sources in

Fifteenmile Watershed

using Bioengineering

Techniques

Wasco

SWCD

Fifteenmile Fundable No 1 57

21015 Riparian Buffers Wasco

SWCD

Fifteenmile Fundable No 2 58

21016 Accelerate the

Application of Integrated

Fruit Management to

Reduce the Risk of

Pesticide Pollution in

Fifteenmile Sub-basin

Orchards

Wy'East

RC&D

Fifteenmile Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 2 58

21019 Fifteenmile Subbasin

Water Right Acquisition

Program

OWT Fifteenmile Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 1 59

21024 Evaluate Hatchery

Reform Principles

NMFS Wind Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 2 61

21026 Inventory and Restore

Beaver and Beaver

Habitats

YN Klickitat Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 2 72

21027 Inventory and Assess

Amphibian Populations

in the Klickitat Subbasin

YN Klickitat Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 2 73
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

Table of Proposals - see page 4 for background on recommendations and score level (1 = high score; 2 =

medium; 3 = low).

81

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin Preliminary

ISRP Rec.

Response

Needed

Score

Level

Page

21028 Klickitat Watershed and

Habitat Enhancement

Project

YN Klickitat No decision.

Not amenable

to scientific

review.

NA NA 74

21033 White Salmon River

Watershed

Enhancement Project

UCD White

Salmon

Fundable No 1 63

198805303 Hood River Production

Program - CTWSRO

M&E

CTWSRO Hood Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 2 48 and

53

198805304 Hood River Production

Program - ODFW M&E

ODFW Hood Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 2 48 and

51

198805307 Hood River Production

Program: Powerdale,

Parkdale, Oak Springs

O&M (88-053-07 & 88-

053-08)

CTWS

and

ODFW

Hood Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 2 48 and

50

198811525 Yakima/Klickitat

Fisheries Project Design

and Construction

YN Klickitat Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 2 63 and

67

198812025 Yakima/Klickitat

Fisheries Project

(YKFP) Management,

Data and Habitat

(Klickitat Only)

YN Klickitat Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 2 64 and

67

198902900 Hood River Production

Program - Pelton

Ladder - Hatchery

ODFW Hood Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 2 48 and

52

199304000 Fifteenmile Creek

Habitat Restoration

Project (Request For

Multi-Year Funding)

ODFW Fifteenmile Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 2 55

199304001 15-Mile Creek

Steelhead Smolt

Production

ODFW Fifteenmile Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 2 56

199405400 Bull trout population

assessment in the

Columbia River Gorge,

WA.

WDFW Klickitat Fundable No 2 70

199500700 Hood River Production -

PGE: O&M

PGE Hood Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 2 48 and

53

199506325 Yakima/Klickitat

Fisheries Project

Monitoring And

Evaluation (Klickitat

Only)

YN Klickitat Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 2 63 and

68

199701725 Yakima Klickitat

Fisheries Project

Operation and

Maintenance (Klickitat)

YN Klickitat Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 2 63 and

69
ISRP 2000-8 Preliminary Gorge and Inter-Mountain Proposal Review

Table of Proposals - see page 4 for background on recommendations and score level (1 = high score; 2 =

medium; 3 = low).

82

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin Preliminary

ISRP Rec.

Response

Needed

Score

Level

Page

199705600 Lower Klickitat Riparian

and In-Channel Habitat

Enhancement Project

YN Klickitat Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 2 69

199801900 Wind River Watershed

Restoration

UCD,USF

S,USGSCRRL,W

DFW

Wind Fundable only

if response is

adequate.

Yes 2 59

199802100 Hood River Fish Habitat

Project

CTWSRO Hood Fundable No 1 54

________________________________________

w:\em\ww\isrp\1 final isrp reports\isrp 2000-8 prelim gorge and int mtn review.doc