Independent Scientific Review Panel

for the Northwest Power Planning Council

851 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1100

Portland, Oregon 97204

isrp@nwppc.org

Final Review 

of

Fiscal Year 2003 Proposals 

for the 

Upper and Middle Snake, 

Columbia Cascade, and

Lower Columbia and Estuary 

Provinces

ISRP 2002-11

June 7, 2002
Review Teams

Columbia Cascade 

Chuck Coutant

Lyman McDonald

Richard Whitney

Richard N. Williams

Upper and Middle Snake 

Jack Griffith

Lyman McDonald

Richard N. Williams

Lower Columbia and Estuary 

Susan Hanna

William Liss

Brian Riddell

William Smoker

Staff

Erik Merrill
i

ISRP Final Review of Fiscal Year 2003 Proposals for 

the Upper and Middle Snake, Columbia Cascade and 

Lower Columbia and Estuary Provinces

Table of Contents

I. Index of Upper and Middle Snake Proposals by Project ID .........................................iii

II. Index of Columbia Cascade Proposals by Project ID................................................viii

III. Index of Lower Columbia and Estuary Proposals by Project ID............................... xv

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

Recommendation Categories........................................................................................... 2

Programmatic Issues ....................................................................................................... 3

Stock Assessments.................................................................................................... 3

Watershed Assessments and Analysis........................................................................ 4

Exotic Species and Stocks......................................................................................... 6

Prioritization of Habitat Protection and Restoration Projects...................................... 6

Planning and Implementation .................................................................................... 7

Supplementation as an Experiment ............................................................................ 7

Reintroductions ......................................................................................................... 8

Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting of Results..................................................... 8

Monitoring for Survival and SAR using PIT-TAGS................................................................... 11

Specific Comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation ....................................................... 11

Specific Comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................... 12

Habitat Evaluation Procedures and Habitat Suitability Indices................................................... 12

Management Relevance of Scientific Proposals....................................................... 13

References............................................................................................................... 13

Final Recommendations and Comments on Each Proposal............................................ 15

PART I. Upper and Middle Snake Provinces.......................................................... 15

Middle Snake Province............................................................................................ 15

Boise/Payette/Weiser River Subbasins...................................................................................... 15

Bruneau River Subbasin............................................................................................................ 21

Owyhee River Subbasin............................................................................................................ 23

Lower Middle Snake River Subbasin ........................................................................................ 27

Upper Middle Snake River Subbasin......................................................................................... 29

Malheur River Subbasin............................................................................................................ 31

Powder River Subbasin............................................................................................................. 37

Upper Snake Province ............................................................................................. 38

Headwaters Subbasin................................................................................................................ 38

Upper Closed Basin Subbasin ................................................................................................... 40

Upper Snake River Subbasin..................................................................................................... 40

PART II. Columbia Cascade Province.................................................................... 48

General Comments................................................................................................................... 48

Upper Columbia River Subbasin ............................................................................................... 49

Entiat River Subbasin ............................................................................................................... 54

Wenatchee River Subbasin........................................................................................................ 55
ii

Methow River Subbasin............................................................................................................ 60

Okanogan River Subbasin......................................................................................................... 72

PART III. Lower Columbia and Estuary Provinces.................................................. 95

Lamprey Proposals................................................................................................................... 95

Bull Trout Proposals................................................................................................................. 96

Abernathy Fish Lab Proposals................................................................................................... 97

Chinook and Grays River (Chum) Proposals ............................................................................. 99

Chum Proposals.......................................................................................................................101

Estuary and Plume Proposals...................................................................................................103

Habitat Restoration Proposals..................................................................................................116

Cowlitz Proposals....................................................................................................................127

Other Lower Columbia Proposals.............................................................................................129

Index of Proposals by Project ID.......................................................................... 13839
I. Index of Upper and Middle Snake Proposals Sorted by Project ID

iii

I. Index of Upper and Middle Snake Proposals by Project ID

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY03 Request ISRP 

Recommendation

CBFWA 

Category

ISRP Comparison 

with CBFWA

Page

Middle Snake Province

32001 Evaluate the Feasibility Artificial 

Production Facility DVIR

SPTDVIROwyhee $300,000 Not Fundable High Priority Disagree - Not 

Fundable

26

32002 Implement Best Management 

Practices to improve riparian habitat 

and upland conditions within the 

Billingsley Creek watershed.

GSCD Snake Upper 

Middle

$114,635 Fundable Recommended 

Action

Agree - Fundable 29

32003 White Sturgeon put, grow, and take 

fishery feasibility assessment, 

Oxbow/Hells Canyon reservoirs.

NPT Snake Lower 

Middle

$356,800 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable, 

High Priority

28

32004 Effects of culverts on fish population 

persistence: tools for prioritizing fish 

passage restoration projects in the 

Middle Snake Province

RMRS Boise $23,600 Fundable Recommended 

Action

Agree - Fundable, 

Low Priority

30

32005 Burns Paiute Fish and Wildlife 

Mitigation Coordinator

BPFW Malheur $53,978 Not Applicable Recommended 

Action

Not Applicable 37

32006 Compare the parr-smolt 

transformation of nonanadromous and 

anadromous populations of 

Oncorhynchus mykiss

IDFG Weiser $90,530 Fundable Recommended 

Action

Agree - Fundable 20

32007 Bull trout habitat 

restoration/protection program -

Bruneau Subbasin

SPTDVIRBruneau $218,374 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 21

32008 Wildlife Inventory and Habitat 

Evaluation of Duck Valley Indian 

Reservation

SPTDVIROwyhee $127,461 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable, 

High Priority

24

32009 Squaw Creek Cooperative Fisheries 

Restoration Project

RC&D Payette $43,750 Fundable in Part Recommended 

Action

Partially Disagree 

- Fundable in Part

17

32010 Lookout Mountain Road 

Decommissioning

BLM Snake Lower 

Middle

$49,150 Fundable Recommended 

Action

Agree - Fundable 29

32011 Mitigation of marine-derived nutrient 

loss in the Boise-Payette-Weiser 

subbasin.

IDFG, 

WSU, UI, 

PNW,OS

Boise $354,789 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 18
I. Index of Upper and Middle Snake Proposals Sorted by Project ID

iv

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY03 Request ISRP 

Recommendation

CBFWA 

Category

ISRP Comparison 

with CBFWA

Page

32012 Implement Best Management 

Practices to improve riparian habitat 

and upland conditions within the 

Clover Creek watershed.

BRSCD Bruneau $44,500 Fundable Recommended 

Action

Agree - Fundable 22

32013 Fishery Restoration of the Gold Fork 

River, Idaho

IDFG and 

IOSC

Payette $344,500 Fundable in Part High Priority Agree - Fundable 

in Part

19

32014 Feasibility Study of Transporting 

Salmonids Through a Translucent 

Fish Passage System

SPTDVIROwyhee $102,050 Not Fundable Do Not Fund Agree - Not 

Fundable

27

32015 Deadwood River and Clear Creek 

Drainages Roads Analysis and Repair

USFS Payette $105,800 Fundable Recommended 

Action

Agree - Fundable 20

32016 Assess the feasibility of the Upper 

Malheur Watershed to support the 

reintroduction of anadromous 

populations above the Beulah & 

Warmsprings Reservoir

BPT Malheur $168,896 

(Adjusted 

$49,000)

Fundable in Part High Priority Agree - Fundable 

in Part

35

32017 Suppress Brook Trout Populations in 

the Upper Malheur Subbasin.

BPT Malheur $221,473 Not Fundable Do Not Fund Agree - Not 

Fundable

36

32018 Williams Ranch Fish and Wildlife 

Acquisition Project

BPT Malheur $2,259,392 Fundable in Part High Priority Partially Disagree 

- Fundable in Part 

34

32019 Logan Valley Fish and Wildlife 

Project- Stanbro Ranch Acquisition

BPT Malheur $1,355,286 Fundable in Part High Priority Partially Disagree 

- Fundable in Part 

33

32020 Inventory and Assessment of 

Stream/Riparian Resources, upper 

Boise and upper Payette River 

Subbasins, Idaho

WHA Boise $176,000 Fundable Recommended 

Action

Agree - Fundable, 

Low Priority

16

32021 Lower Boise River Wetlands 

Restoration Project

Pioneer 

Irrigation 

District

Boise $164,500 Fundable Recommended 

Action

Agree - Fundable, 

Low Priority

16

198815600 Implement Fishery Stocking Program 

Consistent With Native Fish 

Conservation

SPT -

DVIR

Owyhee $211,688 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 25

199405400 Tools for Managing Bull Trout 

Populations Influenced by Nonnative 

Brook Trout Invasions

ODFW Powder $555,981 

(Adjusted 

$329,581)

Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 37

199501500 Lake Billy Shaw Operations and 

Maintenance and Evaluation 

Sho-Pai 

DVIR

Owyhee $293,000 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 25
I. Index of Upper and Middle Snake Proposals Sorted by Project ID

v

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY03 Request ISRP 

Recommendation

CBFWA 

Category

ISRP Comparison 

with CBFWA

Page

199505701 Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation -

Middle Snake

IDFG & 

IOSC

Boise $3,889,703 Fundable 

(Qualified - see 

comments)

High Priority Agree - Fundable 

(Qualified)

15

199505703 Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation -

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes

SPTDVIROwyhee $1,813,746 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 23

199701100 Enhance and Protect Habitat and 

Riparian Areas on the DVIR

SPT -

DVIR

Owyhee $344,696 Not Fundable High Priority Disagree - Not 

Fundable

24

199701900 Evaluate The Life History Of Native 

Salmonids In The Malheur Basin

BPT Malheur $324,401 Fundable in Part High Priority Partially Disagree 

- Fundable in Part 

35

199800200 Snake River Native Salmonid 

Assessment

IDFG and 

IOSC

Snake Lower 

Middle

$346,375 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable, 

High Priority

27

200000900 Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation 

Project/ O&M

BPT Malheur $146,842 Fundable in Part High Priority Partially Disagree 

- Fundable in Part 

32

200002700 Malheur River Wildlife Mitigation 

Project

BPT Malheur $694,880 

(Adjusted 

$426,880)

Fundable in Part 

as Amended 

(Qualified - see 

comments)

High Priority Partially Disagree 

- Fundable in Part 

as Amended 

(Qualified)

31

200007900 Assess Resident Fish Stocks Of The 

Owyhee/Bruneau Basin, D.V.I.R.

Sho-Pai 

Tribes -

DVIR

Bruneau $232,000 Not Fundable High Priority Disagree - Not 

Fundable

21

Total Request for Middle Snake $15,528,776 CBFWA 

adjusted:

$14,914,480

Upper Snake Province

33001 Assessment of genetic population 

structure and risk of introgression and 

hybridization to native trout in the 

Mid and Upper Snake River 

Provinces

IDFG and 

IOSC

Upper Snake $228,458 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable, 

High Priority

42

33002 Establish Instream Flow and 

Reservoir Pool Habitat for Native and 

Other Trout in the Upper Snake 

River/American Falls Fragment Area

IDFG Upper Snake $104,100 Not Fundable Recommended 

Action

Disagree - Not 

Fundable

44

33003 Sage Grouse Distribution and Habitat 

Use in the Upper Snake River Basin, 

Blackfoot and Willow Creek 

Drainages.

IDFG Upper Snake $211,716 Not Fundable Recommended 

Action

Disagree - Not 

Fundable

46
I. Index of Upper and Middle Snake Proposals Sorted by Project ID

vi

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY03 Request ISRP 

Recommendation

CBFWA 

Category

ISRP Comparison 

with CBFWA

Page

33004 Survival of adfluvial Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout in the upper Blackfoot 

River drainage

IDFG Upper Snake $137,500 Fundable Recommended 

Action

Agree - Fundable 43

33005 Monitoring Avian Productivity and 

Survivorship in Sensitive Habitats in 

the Upper Closed Basin

TREC Upper Closed 

Basin

$76,233 withdrawn 40

33006 Monitoring Avian Productivity and 

Survivorship on Mitigation Lands and 

Sensitive Habitats in the Upper 

Snake Headwaters

TREC Headwaters $56,789 withdrawn 39

33007 Implement Best Management 

Practices to improve riparian habitat 

and upland conditions in the 

Medicine Lodge watershed.

Clark 

SCD

Upper Closed 

Basin

$98,902 Fundable Recommended 

Action

Agree - Fundable, 

Low Priority

40

33008 Assessing effects of Columbia River 

Basin anadromous fish flow 

management on the aquatic ecology 

of the Henry's Fork watershed

HFF Upper Snake $211,596 Fundable Recommended 

Action

Agree - Fundable 44

33009 Improve Yellowstone cutthroat trout 

recruitment and survival in the South 

Fork of the Snake River

IDFG Headwaters $264,700 Fundable High Priority Agree - High 

Priority

39

33010 Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Fish 

Production Program

SBT Upper Snake $90,000 Not Fundable High Priority Disagree - Not 

Fundable

45

33011 Implementing land use for resource 

and community sustainability at the 

county and regional level.

IDFG, 

U of I, 

MSU, 

OSC

Upper Snake $243,051 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 46

33012 Flow Augmentation In The Upper 

Snake River Sub-Basin To Benefit 

Anadromous, Resident Fish And 

Wildlife Species.

USBWU Upper Snake $1,117,911 withdrawn 45

33013 Evaluation of Pisces Fish Protective 

Water Intake System

BPI Upper Snake $273,500 Not Fundable Do Not Fund Agree - Not 

Fundable

45

199201000 Habitat Restoration/Enhancement 

Fort Hall Reservation

SBT Upper Snake $175,000 Fundable 

(Qualified - see 

comments)

High Priority Agree - Fundable 

(Qualified)

40
I. Index of Upper and Middle Snake Proposals Sorted by Project ID

vii

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY03 Request ISRP 

Recommendation

CBFWA 

Category

ISRP Comparison 

with CBFWA

Page

199505700 Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation -

Upper Snake

IDFG & 

IOSC

Headwaters $4,068,153 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 38

199505702 Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation 

Program

SBT Upper Snake $3,592,141 Fundable in Part High Priority Partially Disagree 

- Fundable in Part 

41

Total Request for Upper Snake $10,949,750
II. Index of Columbia Cascade Proposals Sorted by Project ID

viii

II. Index of Columbia Cascade Proposals by Project ID

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY03 Request Adjusted 

FY03 Budget 

(CBFWA)

ISRP 

Recommendation

CBFWA Category ISRP 

Comparison with 

CBFWA

Page

29001 Evaluation of 1872 Water Rights to 

Supplement Flows Between Basins

CCT Okanogan $77,000 $39,000 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 74

29002 Conjunctive Use and River 

Enhancement (CURE) for Habitat 

Improvement in the Upper Methow 

River

CBC Methow $500,000 Fundable in Part Recommended 

Action

Partially 

Disagree -

Fundable in Part, 

Low Priority

64

29003 Acquire Property for Partial Wildlife 

mitigation

CTCR Okanogan $1,500,000 $1,000,000 Fundable in Part High Priority Partially 

Disagree -

Fundable in Part

93

29004 Control Okanogan Weeds -Invasive 

Species Project

CTCR Okanogan $299,933 Not Fundable Recommended 

Action

Disagree - Not 

Fundable

92

29005 Validate Occurrence and Assess 

Abundance of Wildlife Species

CTCR Okanogan $194,136 Fundable 

(Qualified - see 

comments)

Recommended 

Action

Agree - Fundable 

(Qualified)

90

29006 Supplement Spring Chinook in Early 

Winters Creek

MSRF Methow $231,000 Fundable Recommended 

Action

Agree - Fundable 71

29007 Okanogan Kelt Reconditioning CCT Okanogan $151,387 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 87

29008 Adult Passage Counting and Trapping 

at Zosel Dam

CCT Okanogan $108,474 Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable, High 

Priority

85
II. Index of Columbia Cascade Proposals Sorted by Project ID

ix

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY03 Request Adjusted 

FY03 Budget 

(CBFWA)

ISRP 

Recommendation

CBFWA Category ISRP 

Comparison with 

CBFWA

Page

29009 Acquire Dole-Beebe Property and 

Associated Water Rights

WDFW Columbia 

Upper Middle

$896,500 $396,500 Fundable 

(Qualified - see 

comments)

High Priority Agree - Fundable 

(Qualified)

49

29010 Restore Passage on Private Lands in

Beaver Creek Drainage to Benefit 

Spring Chinook, Steelhead and 

Bulltrout

WDFW Methow $239,774 $0 Fundable 

(Qualified - see 

comments)

High Priority Agree - Fundable 

(Qualified)

61

29011 Sharp-tailed Grouse and Mule Deer 

Habitat Restoration and Enhancement

on Sinlahekin Wildlife Area

WDFW Okanogan $0 withdrawn withdrawn withdrawn 94

29012 Replace Rockview Diversion with 

Groundwater Withdrawal and Restore 

Instream Habitat

WDFW Methow $141,954 $91,954 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 67

29013 Acquire Land Adjacent to Chiliwist 

Creek and Develop Summer Chinook 

and Summer Steelhead Acclimation 

Pond

WDFW Okanogan $823,952 $447,470 Fundable High Priority Disagree -

Fundable, 

Medium Priority

88

29014 The Effects of Impoundment on Fish 

and Amphibian Habitat Use in Eastern 

Washington

WDFW Entiat $106,187 Fundable Recommended 

Action

Disagree -

Fundable, High 

Priority

54

29015 Thermal Imaging of the Okanogan and 

Wenatchee Watersheds

CCT Okanogan $196,654 $111,904 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 76

29016 Return of Okanagan Sockeye Salmon to 

their historic range.

CCT/ 

ONFC

Okanogan $175,000 $175,000 Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable, High 

Priority

86

29017 Prepare a Master Plan for Protecting 

and Restoring Salmon Habitat in 

Okanagan River

CCT/ 

ONFC

Okanogan $59,000 Fundable Recommended 

Action

Disagree -

Fundable, High 

Priority

72
II. Index of Columbia Cascade Proposals Sorted by Project ID

x

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY03 Request Adjusted 

FY03 Budget 

(CBFWA)

ISRP 

Recommendation

CBFWA Category ISRP 

Comparison with 

CBFWA

Page

29018 Analyze ground-water and surfacewater exchanges influencing 

anadromous salmonid habitat in the 

Methow River and its major tributaries

USGS Methow $188,937 Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable, High 

Priority

69

29019 Characterize and Assess WildlifeHabitat Types and Stuctural Conditions 

for Okanogan sub-basin

NHI, CCT Okanogan $27,907 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 91

29020 Beaver CR Campground Rehabilitation OCD Methow $60,445 Not Fundable Recommended 

Action

Disagree - Not 

Fundable

61

29021 Develop a Physical Processes Method 

(PPM) to Supplement Habitat 

Conditions Analysis and Subbasin 

Planning

Golder 

Assoc. Inc.

Okanogan $295,229 Not Fundable Recommended 

Action

Disagree - Not 

Fundable

73

29022 Omak Creek Water Temperature Model CCT Okanogan $245,000 Not Fundable Recommended 

Action

Disagree - Not 

Fundable

82

29023 Restoration/Protection of Kartar Creek 

In-stream, riparian, and Wetland 

Habitats

CCT Okanogan $437,823 $86,729 Fundable High Priority 

(Objective 1)

Agree - Fundable 84

29024 Analysis of multiple land uses and their 

effects to shrub-steppe habitat and 

wildlife species, such as roads, patterns 

of development and agriculture.

DCTLS Columbia 

Upper Middle

$320,000 Not Fundable Do Not Fund Agree - Not 

Fundable

50

29025 Columbia Cascade Province Pump 

Screening

WDFW, 

YSS

Methow $218,918 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 66

29026 Hanan-Detwiler Passage Improvements WDFW, 

YSS

Entiat $85,000 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 55
II. Index of Columbia Cascade Proposals Sorted by Project ID

xi

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY03 Request Adjusted 

FY03 Budget 

(CBFWA)

ISRP 

Recommendation

CBFWA Category ISRP 

Comparison with 

CBFWA

Page

29027 Comprehensive Inventory and 

Prioritization of Fish Passage and 

Screening Problems in the Wenatchee 

and Entiat Subbasins

WDFW, 

YSS

Wenatchee $361,585 $277,436 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 58

29028 Fabricate and Install Three New Fish 

Screens on Wenatchee River Diversions

WDFW, 

YSS

Wenatchee $235,000 $184,976 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 59

29029 Perform Range Forage Inventory for 

Large Ungulates

CTCR Okanogan $159,704 Fundable 

(Qualified - see 

comments)

High Priority Agree - Fundable 

(Qualified)

92

29030 Early life history and survival of spring 

chinook salmon and steelhead in the 

Methow River Basin

PNNL Methow $382,939 Fundable Recommended 

Action

Agree - Fundable 63

29031 Out Year Operations and Maintenance 

Costs Required to Implement/Carry out 

MVID Rehabilitation Project

YIN Methow Not Fundable Recommended 

Action

Disagree - Not 

Fundable

70

29032 Okanogan Basin Water Strategy 

Development and Pilot Projects

CCT Okanogan $191,920 $166,920 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 75

29033 Design and Conduct Monitoring and 

Evaluation Associated With 

Reestablishment of Okanogan Basin 

Natural Production

CCT Okanogan $770,152 $480,152 Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable, High 

Priority

72

29034 Life History Study of Salmonid Rearing 

In The Upper Methow River

YIN Methow $273,710 

($365,250)

Not Fundable Recommended 

Action

Disagree - Not 

Fundable

64

29035 Okanogan River Riparian and Upland 

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Aquisition

SP Okanogan $2,957,000 Fundable 

(Qualified - see 

comments)

Recommended 

Action

Disagree -

Fundable, High 

Priority 

(Qualified)

94
II. Index of Columbia Cascade Proposals Sorted by Project ID

xii

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY03 Request Adjusted 

FY03 Budget 

(CBFWA)

ISRP 

Recommendation

CBFWA Category ISRP 

Comparison with 

CBFWA

Page

29036 Ali Long Rearing Channel Habitat 

Improvements- Upper Methow River

YIN Methow $58,500 Not Fundable Recommended 

Action

Disagree - Not 

Fundable

65

29037 Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment in 

the Columbia Cascade Province

WDFW, 

YN, CCT

Methow $925,563 $500,000 Not Fundable High Priority Disagree - Not 

Fundable

62

29038 Supplement Summer Steelhead 

Eightmile Creek/Chewuch River

MSRF Methow $205,000 Fundable Recommended 

Action

Agree - Fundable 71

29039 The effects of fine sediment on the 

hyporheic zone: monitoring and 

evaluating the influence of hyporheic 

exchange flows on stream temperature.

USFS Wenatchee $102,039 Fundable Recommended 

Action

Disagree -

Fundable, High 

Priority

57

29040 OK-11 Develop and Propagate Local 

Okanogan River Summer/Fall Chinook

CCT Okanogan $602,000 $402,000 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 88

29041 Evaluate Distribution, Abundance, 

Genetic Structure, and Habitat Use of 

Bull Trout Populations in the Columbia 

Cascade Province

USFWS Columbia 

Upper Middle

$186,366 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 51

29042 Selective Fish Collection and 

Harvesting Gear

CCT Okanogan $231,000 $166,000 Not Fundable High Priority Disagree - Not 

Fundable

81

29043 SSHIAP - Columbia Cascade Province WDFW Columbia 

Upper Middle

$390,000 Fundable Recommended 

Action

Agree - Fundable 52

29044 Protecting Habitat on Private Lands in 

the Methow Watershed

N/A Methow $1,153,100 $200,000 Fundable 

(Qualified - see 

comments)

High Priority Agree -

Fundable, High 

Priority 

(Qualified)

66
II. Index of Columbia Cascade Proposals Sorted by Project ID

xiii

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY03 Request Adjusted 

FY03 Budget 

(CBFWA)

ISRP 

Recommendation

CBFWA Category ISRP 

Comparison with 

CBFWA

Page

29045 Protect and Restore Salmon and 

Steelhead Habitat at the 

Similkameen/Okanogan River 

Confluence

Upper Col. 

RFEG

Okanogan $239,700 $0 Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable, High 

Priority

84

29046 Develop a Coordinated Resource 

Management Plan for Beaver Creek and 

plan and implement habitat restoration 

activities.

OCD Methow $51,783 $24,458 Fundable 

(Qualified - see

comments)

Recommended 

Action

Agree - Fundable 

(Qualified)

60

29050 Phase I Okanogan River Spring 

Chinook Production

CCT Okanogan $112,000 Not Fundable High Priority Disagree - Not 

Fundable

87

29051 Develop Local Okanogan River 

Steelhead Brood Stock

CCT Okanogan $192,000 $122,000 Fundable High Priority Disagree -

Fundable, Low 

Priority

89

29052 Spatial and Temporal Occurrence of 

Salmonid Pathogens in the Upper 

Middle Mainstem Subbasin of the 

Columbia Cascade Province

WSU Columbia 

Upper Middle

$220,832 Fundable (see 

ISRP innovative 

review - ranked 

in top 10)

Recommended 

Action

Agree - Fundable 53

29053 Icicle/Wenatchee Habitat Acquisition CDLT Wenatchee $1,547,750 $257,500 Fundable 

(Qualified - see 

comments)

High Priority Agree -

Fundable, High 

Priority 

(Qualified)

59

29054 Stream Gaging Installation and 

Operations

Ecology Okanogan $395,000 $150,000 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 78

29055 Columbia Cascade Water Rights 

Acquisition

Ecology Okanogan $554,875 $154,875 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 78

29056 Establish a Water Cleanup Plan 

(temperature TMDL) for the Okanogan 

subbasin

Ecology Okanogan Combined 

with 29015

NA NA NA 77
II. Index of Columbia Cascade Proposals Sorted by Project ID

xiv

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY03 Request Adjusted 

FY03 Budget 

(CBFWA)

ISRP 

Recommendation

CBFWA Category ISRP 

Comparison with 

CBFWA

Page

199604000 Evaluate The Feasibility And Risks Of 

Coho Reintroduction In Mid-Columbia

YN Wenatchee $2,412,000 $2,195,191 Fundable in Part High Priority Partially 

Disagree -

Fundable in Part

56

199604200 Restore and Enhance Anadromous Fish 

Populations and Habitat in Salmon 

Creek

CCT Okanogan $4,091,366 $1,300,000 Not Fundable High Priority Disagree - Not 

Fundable

79

199609400 Increase sharp-tailed grouse and mule 

deer populations and enhance 

shrubsteppe/riparian habitats on the 

Scotch Creek Wildlife Area.

WDFW Okanogan $461,401 $408,401 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 90

200000100 Improvement of Anadromous Fish 

Habitat and Passage in Omak Creek

CCT Okanogan $122,717 Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable, High 

Priority

81

200000200 Final Phase of the Chumstick Culvert 

Replacement and Habitat Restoration 

Enhancement

CCCD Wenatchee $326,750 $0 Fundable High Priority Disagree -

Fundable, Low 

Priority

55

200001300 Evaluate An Experimental Reintroduction of Sockeye Salmon into 

Skaha Lake

CCT Okanogan $18,096 Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable, High 

Priority

86

Total Request Columbia Cascade $27,512,058 $17,754,414
III. Index of Lower Columbia and Estuary Proposals Sorted by Project ID

xv

III. Index of Lower Columbia and Estuary Proposals by Project ID

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY03 Request ISRP 

Recommendation

CBFWA 

Category

ISRP 

Comparison 

with CBFWA

Page

Columbia Estuary

30001 Historic habitat opportunities and foodweb linkages of juvenile salmon in the 

Columbia River estuary: Implications for 

managing flows and restoration

NWFSC/ 

NMFS

Columbia 

Estuary

$597,559 Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable, High 

Priority

105

30002 Optimization of FCRPS Impacts on 

Juvenile Salmonids: Restoration of 

Lower-Estuary and Plume Habitats

OHSU Columbia 

Estuary

$435,192 Fundable in Part High Priority Partially 

Disagree -

Fundable in Part

106

30003 Evaluation of Two Captive Rearing 

Methods for Assisting with Recovery of 

Naturally Spawning Populations of 

Steelhead and Coho Salmon

USFWS Elochoman $446,101 Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable, High 

Priority

97

30004 Blind Slough Restoration Project -

Brownsmead, Oregon

CREST Columbia 

Estuary

$173,550 Fundable 

(Qualified - see 

comments)

Recommended 

Action

Agree -

Fundable 

(Qualified)

116

30005 Grays River Watershed and Biological 

Assessment

LCFRB; 

PSMFC; 

PNNL

Grays $474,734 Fundable in Part High Priority Partially 

Disagree -

Fundable in Part

100

30006 Effectiveness monitoring of the Chinook 

River estuary restoration project.

Sea 

Resources

Columbia 

Estuary

$124,804 Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

99

30007 An Acoustic Tracking Array for Studying 

Ocean Survival and Movements of 

Columbia River Salmon

Kintama 

Research 

Corporation

Columbia 

Estuary

$2,930,535 Fundable in Part Do Not Fund Disagree -

Fundable in Part

109

30008 Instream evaluation of populations, 

migration timing, individual adult return 

rates, and wild-hatchery interactions of 3 

naturally produced salmonids

USFWS Elochoman $238,740 Fundable High Priority Disagree -

Fundable, 

Medium Priority

97

30009 Coastal Cutthroat Movements in the 

Columbia River Estuary

USFWS Columbia 

Estuary

withdrawn 111
III. Index of Lower Columbia and Estuary Proposals Sorted by Project ID

xvi

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY03 Request ISRP 

Recommendation

CBFWA 

Category

ISRP 

Comparison 

with CBFWA

Page

30010 Canada-USA Shelf Salmon Survival 

Study

DFO Columbia 

Estuary

$418,800 Fundable in Part Do Not Fund Disagree -

Fundable in Part

107

30011 Preserve and Restore Columbia River 

Estuary Islands to Enhance Juvenile 

Salmonid and Columbian White-tailed 

Deer Habitat.

USFWS & 

CLT & 

USGS

Columbia 

Estuary

$719,437

(Adjusted 

585437)

Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

117

30012 Compare Bacterial Fish Pathogen 

Populations in Hatchery Water and in 

Adjacent Creek Water and Evaluate 

Possible Disease Transfer Between Them.

USFWS Elochoman $71,678 Not Fundable Recommended 

Action

Disagree - Not 

Fundable

98

30013 Role of Bacteria as Indicator Organisms 

for Watershed Assessment and in 

Determining Fish Pathogen Relationships 

with Fauna of Abernathy Creek

USFWS Elochoman $71,100 Fundable 

(Qualified - see 

comments)

Recommended 

Action

Agree -

Fundable 

(Qualified)

98

30014 Map Subtidal Large Woody Debris and 

Other Habitat Features in Relation to Fish 

Distribution in the Lower Columbia River 

Estuary

Battelle 

Marine 

Sciences 

Laboratory

Columbia 

Estuary

withdrawn 111

30015 Lower Columbia River and Columbia 

River Estuary Ecosystem Monitoring and 

Data Management

LCREP Columbia 

Estuary

$472,000 Fundable 

(Qualified - see 

comments)

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable, Low 

Priority 

(Qualified)

112

30016 Implement the Habitat Restoration 

Program for the Columbia Estuary and 

Lower Columbia River

LCREP, 

CREST

Columbia 

Estuary

$5,236,200 Fundable (in Part) Recommended 

Action

Agree -

Fundable

113

30017 Columbia River Tidewater Assessment 

for Recovery Planning

UP Columbia 

Estuary

$137,338 Not Fundable Recommended 

Action

Disagree - Not 

Fundable

107

30018 Salmonid Population and Habitat 

Monitoring in the Oregon Portion of the 

Columbia Estuary

ODFW Columbia 

Estuary

$528,913 Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

111

31001 Artificial production facilities 

improvements to support Lower Columbia 

chum salmon reintroduction into the 

Chinook River

Sea 

Resources

Columbia 

Estuary

$41,865 Fundable 

(Qualified - see 

comments)

Recommended 

Action

Agree -

Fundable 

(Qualified)

100
III. Index of Lower Columbia and Estuary Proposals Sorted by Project ID

xvii

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY03 Request ISRP 

Recommendation

CBFWA 

Category

ISRP 

Comparison 

with CBFWA

Page

199801400 Survival and Growth of Juvenile 

Salmonids in the Columbia River Plume

NMFS Columbia 

Estuary

$2,092,855 Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable (some 

elements are 

high priority, 

other are 

medium to low 

priority)

103

Lower Columbia

31002 Wildlife Habitat Protection, Lower 

McKenzie Watershed (Jaqua)

TNC Willamette $2,321,025 Fundable Recommended 

Action

Agree -

Fundable, Low 

to Medium 

Priority

137

31003 Distribution and life history 

characteristics of lampreys in tributaries 

of the lower Columbia River Basin

USFWS Columbia 

Lower

$173,281 Fundable Recommended 

Action

Agree -

Fundable, Low 

Priority

95

31004 Salmon Carcass Enrichment -- Willamette 

(Clackamas) & Sandy Subbasins

USFS Willamette $509,858 Fundable Recommended 

Action

Agree -

Fundable, Low 

Priority

131

31005 Incorporating Pit Tag Technology to 

Evaluate and Monitor the Reintroduction 

Effort for Anadromous Salmonids in the 

Upper Cowlitz Watershed

WDFW Cowlitz $257,130 Not fundable 

(Qualified - see 

comments)

Recommended 

Action

Disagree - Not 

Fundable 

(Qualified)

127

31006 Protect Wood's Landing Chum Spawning 

Site

City of 

Vancouver

Columbia 

Lower

$1,352,360 

(adjusted 

765,810)

Not Fundable 

(Qualified - see 

comments)

High Priority Disagree - Not 

Fundable 

(Qualified)

102

31007 Distribution and seasonal habitat use of

ESA-listed salmonid species in City of 

Portland tributary streams

COP Willamette $62,000 Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

138

31010 Re-open Off-channel Habitat for Lower 

Columbia ESU

ESA 

Program

Willamette $449,000 Not Fundable Do Not Fund Agree - Not 

Fundable

126

31011 Renaturalize Functional Floodplain 

Habitat within the Portland Reach of the 

Lower Willamette River

COP Willamette $524,500 Not Fundable Do Not Fund Agree - Not 

Fundable

126
III. Index of Lower Columbia and Estuary Proposals Sorted by Project ID

xviii

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY03 Request ISRP 

Recommendation

CBFWA 

Category

ISRP 

Comparison 

with CBFWA

Page

31012 Leveraging Conservation Easements for 

Fish and Wildlife in the Willamette Basin

CPRC&D Willamette $68,090 Fundable Recommended 

Action

Agree -

Fundable

132

31013 Investigate Re-establishing Anadromous 

Fish Populations Above man-made 

Barriers

ODFW Willamette $221,977 Fundable Recommended 

Action

Agree -

Fundable, Low 

to Medium 

Priority

123

31014 Evaluate juvenile salmonid use of restored 

floodplain wetlands in the Lower 

Columbia River Estuary

DU Columbia 

Lower

$150,000 Not Fundable Recommended 

Action

Disagree - Not 

Fundable

117

31015 Sturgeon Lake/Dairy Creek Restoration WMSWCD Columbia 

Lower

$121,000 Not Fundable Recommended 

Action

Disagree - Not 

Fundable

118

31016 Calapooia River Flow Acquisition and 

Fish Passage Assessment

ODFW Willamette $53,500 Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

123

31017 Monitor and evaluate the success of 

hatchery salmonid reproduction for 

reintroduction of anadromous salmonids 

to the upper Cowlitz Basin

WDFW Cowlitz $183,661 Not fundable 

(Qualified - see 

comments)

High Priority Disagree - Not 

Fundable 

(Qualified)

127

31018 Willamette Basin Riparian Project Marion 

SWCD

Willamette $784,765 Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable, High 

Priority

135

31019 Fish Passage Assessment and 

Prioritization Program

DLUT Columbia 

Lower

$72,432 Fundable Recommended 

Action

Agree -

Fundable

119

31020 Monitor Coweeman River Salmonid 

Populations

WDFW Cowlitz $277,962 Fundable Recommended 

Action

Agree -

Fundable, but 

potentially High 

Priority

128

31021 Reduction of gravel road sediment 

production & interruption of sediment 

delivery to streams

DLUT Columbia 

Lower

$238,436 Not Fundable Do Not Fund Agree - Not 

Fundable

119

31022 Establish a Water Cleanup Plan 

(temperature TMDL) for the East Fork of 

the Lewis subbasin

Ecology Lewis $118,000 Fundable Recommended 

Action

Agree -

Fundable

130
III. Index of Lower Columbia and Estuary Proposals Sorted by Project ID

xix

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY03 Request ISRP 

Recommendation

CBFWA 

Category

ISRP 

Comparison 

with CBFWA

Page

31023 Stream Gaging Installation and 

Operations in the Lewis, 

Salmon/Washougal, and Gray/Elochoman 

Subbasins

Ecology Cowlitz $395,000 Fundable Recommended 

Action

Agree -

Fundable

130

31024 Protect, Enhance and Maintain Wetland, 

Riparian and Upland Habitat on the 

Shillapoo Wildlife Area

WDFW Columbia 

Lower

$0 Fundable High Priority Disagree -

Fundable, Low 

to Medium 

Priority

120

31025 Construct Fish Screen and Fish Passage 

Improvements at Lebanon Diversion Dam 

on South Santiam River

City of 

Albany, 

Oregon

Willamette $420,000 Not Fundable Do Not Fund Agree - Not 

Fundable

133

31027 Movements and Survival of Juvenile and 

Adult Bull Trout

USFWS Lewis $207,585 Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable, High 

Priority

96

31028 Replace Upper and Lower Bennett Dam 

Fish Ladders in the North Santiam River 

at Geren Island (Stayton Island)

City of 

Salem, OR

Willamette $200,000 Fundable Do Not Fund Disagree -

Fundable 

134

31029 Clark County ESA Outreach Program Clark 

County, 

WA

Columbia 

Lower

$205,000 Not Fundable Do Not Fund Agree - Not 

Fundable

129

31030 Santiam Water Control District Fish 

Screen and Passage Project

SWCD Willamette $350,000 Fundable Do Not Fund Disagree -

Fundable 

134

31031 Clatsop County Fisheries Restoration 

Project

CEDC 

Fisheries

Columbia 

Lower

$455,250 Not Fundable Do Not Fund Agree - Not 

Fundable

115

31032 Develop a Well Water Supply System for 

the Hardy Creek Chum Salmon Spawning 

Channel

USFWS Columbia 

Lower

$152,500 

(adjusted 

$69,800)

Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

102

31033 Restoration of Columbia River Floodplain 

Functions to Steigerwald Lake

USFWS Columbia 

Lower

$373,000 Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable, High 

Priority

121

31034 Salmonid Population and Habitat 

Monitoring in the Oregon Portion of the 

Lower Columbia Province

ODFW Columbia 

Lower

$532,648 Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

112
III. Index of Lower Columbia and Estuary Proposals Sorted by Project ID

xx

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY03 Request ISRP 

Recommendation

CBFWA 

Category

ISRP 

Comparison 

with CBFWA

Page

199107800 Burlington Bottoms Wildlife Mitigation 

Project

ODFW Willamette $110,000 Fundable High Priority Disagree -

Fundable, Low 

Priority

125

199205900 Amazon Basin/Eugene Wetlands Phase

Two

TNC Willamette $60,650 Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

124

199206800 Implement Willamette Basin Mitigation 

Program

ODFW Willamette $1,567,500 Fundable High Priority Disagree -

Fundable, Low 

Priority 

122

199306000 Select Area Fishery Evaluation Project WDFW, 

ODFW, 

CEDC

Columbia 

Lower

$2,290,844 Fundable in Part High Priority Partially 

Disagree -

Fundable in Part

114

199405300 Middle Fork Willamette River Bull Trout 

Re-introduction and Basinwide 

Monitoring

ODFW Willamette $159,400 Not Fundable High Priority Disagree - Not 

Fundable

96

199607000 McKenzie River Focus Watershed 

Program Coordination and Habitat 

Restoration

MWC Willamette $325,000 Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

136

199902500 Sandy River Delta Riparian Forest, 

Wetlands, and Anadromous Estuary 

Restoration

USFSCRGNSASandy $162,000 Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable, High 

Priority

121

200001200 Evaluate Factors Limiting the Columbia 

River Gorge Chum Salmon Populations

USFWS Columbia 

Lower

$255,212 Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

101

200001400 Evaluate habitat use and population 

dynamics of lampreys in Cedar Creek

USFWS Lewis $197,742 Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

95

200001600 Protect and Enhance Tualatin River 

National Wildlife Refuge Additions

USFWS/ 

USGS

Lower 

Columbia

$256,000 Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

125

200105300 Re-introduction of Lower Columbia River 

Chum Salmon into Duncan Creek

PSMFC, 

WDFW

Columbia 

Lower

$381,671 Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable, High 

Priority

101

Total Request for Lower Columbia and Estuary Proposals $32,341,450 CBFWA 

adjusted:

$31,404,130
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

1

ISRP Final Review of Fiscal Year 2003 Proposals for 

the Upper and Middle Snake, Columbia Cascade, and 

Lower Columbia and Estuary Provinces

Introduction

This report provides final comments and recommendations of the Independent Scientific Review 

Panel (ISRP) and Peer Review Groups on projects submitted for Fiscal Year 2003 funding in the 

Columbia Cascade, Upper and Middle Snake, and Lower Columbia and Estuary Provinces. In 

addition, a programmatic section with identification of general issues that cut across subbasins 

and provinces is provided. It is included in this report to provide useful reference for proponents 

and the Council in the project selection process and upcoming subbasin planning effort.

The review process to develop these recommendations and comments included several steps. On 

March 1, 2002, the ISRP released a preliminary review of proposals for these five provinces 

(ISRP 2002-2; www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2002-2.htm). The review process for that 

report included several elements that are the foundation of the provincial review process. Each 

proposal was reviewed by several reviewers and discussed by the full review team. Proponents of 

each proposal gave presentations to the ISRP. Each presentation was followed by a question and 

answer session. The ISRP review teams visited most of the subbasins in the provinces, during 

which the teams engaged in informal discussions with project leaders. The site visits and 

presentations were well organized and informative. The combination of the discussions and oral 

presentations was invaluable in identifying potential issues and clarifying the nature of the 

proposed projects. 

These site visits were the last for the first round of provincial reviews, which began in August 

2000. The only remaining review is for Mainstem and Systemwide projects and will not include 

site visits. The site visits for these final five provinces highlighted the need to include field visits 

as a part of the scientific review process. Experiencing the relationship of fish and wildlife 

habitat across the highly varied geological, hydrological, and agricultural landscapes provided a 

valuable context that is not possible with a paper review. For example in the Columbia Cascade, 

the reviewers witnessed the unique dewatering phenomena of the Arrowleaf reach of the Methow 

River, the highly degraded state of Salmon Creek, and the productive spawning habitat of the 

Similkameen River. 

With the release of the ISRP’s preliminary report, project sponsors were provided several weeks 

to respond to the ISRP’s comments. The ISRP received about 134 responses. The ISRP 

reviewers who had reviewed the original proposal reviewed the response related to that proposal, 

and the ISRP review teams as a whole discussed the responses. The ISRP received Columbia 

Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority’s (CBFWA) Draft FY 2003-2005 Work Plans for the final five 

provinces, as scheduled on May 17, 2002 (see www.cbfwa.org), and compared the ISRP review 

team recommendations with CBFWA’s recommendations and comments. Consequently, each 

ISRP recommendation includes a comparison with CBFWA’s prioritization and takes into 

account project sponsor responses to the ISRP’s preliminary review.

Specific recommendations and comments on each of the 168 proposals submitted, with some 

general comments on sets of proposals, are provided in three different sections of the report: 1) 

the Upper and Middle Snake Provinces, 2) the Columbia Cascade Province, and 3) the Lower 

Columbia and Estuary Provinces.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

2

Recommendation Categories

ISRP recommendations are split into three basic categories: 1) fundable (108 proposals), 2) 

fundable in part (17 proposals), and 3) not fundable (35 proposals). Eight proposals were 

considered not amenable to scientific review, withdrawn, or combined with other proposals.

ISRP recommendation categories are based on the criteria provided in the 1996 amendment to the 

Northwest Power Act. The amended Act directs the ISRP to review projects in the context of the 

Council’s program and in regard to whether they:

1. are based on sound science principles; 

2. benefit fish and wildlife; 

3. have clearly defined objectives and outcomes; and 

4. have provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results. 

Pursuant to the 1996 amendment, the Council fully considers the ISRP recommendations when 

making its recommendations regarding funding, and provides an explanation in writing where its 

recommendations diverge from those of the ISRP.

The ISRP uses “fundable,” “not fundable,” and variations to summarize the extent to which a 

proposal meets the ISRP review criteria and to capture the level of ISRP confidence in a proposal. 

After its Fiscal Year 1999 review, the ISRP began using “fundable” rather than “adequate 

proposal,” because funding recommendations are the common currency between the Council, 

CBFWA, and BPA. As such, the “fundable” categories enable a ready comparison with 

CBFWA’s recommendations, which is part of the ISRP review. 

Fundable is assigned to a proposal that substantially meets each of the ISRP criteria. Each 

proposal does not have to contain tasks that independently meet each of the criteria but can be an 

integral part of a program that provides the necessary elements. For example, a habitat 

restoration proposal may use data from a separate monitoring and evaluation proposal to measure 

results. The proposal must demonstrate this integration. “Fundable” is not an ISRP endorsement 

to fund the project or an opinion on the proposal’s priority.

Fundable in Part is assigned to a proposal that includes work that is scientifically supported, but 

also work that is not. In this case, the ISRP specifies which objectives or tasks are not 

scientifically sound and recommends that these parts of the proposal not be funded. Examples are 

proposals that include objectives that are not scientifically supported, for instance a proposal for 

both background assessment work and concurrent major on-the-ground implementation that could 

not be supported before results of the assessment were known, and proposals that included use of 

unsound methods to meet a particular objective.

Not Fundable is assigned to a proposal that is significantly deficient in one or more of the ISRP 

review criteria. One example is a research proposal that is technically sound, but does not offer 

benefits to fish and wildlife because it substantially duplicates past efforts and does not offer new

insights. Another example is a proposal for an ongoing project that may offer benefits to fish, but 

does not include provisions for monitoring and evaluation or report past results. Usually a 

deficiency in one area is a symptom of overall deficiency in the proposal. In most cases, 

proposals that receive “Not Fundable” recommendations lack detailed methods, provision for 

monitoring and evaluation, or have the potential for deleterious effects on native populations. 

The ISRP notes that numerous projects rated “not fundable” propose needed actions or are an 

integral part of a watershed effort, but the proposed methods, tasks or objectives are not 

scientifically sound. The ISRP comments are intended to indicate areas where serious remedial 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

3

effort, such as significant revision and review, is needed before funding continues. In some cases, 

an RFP is warranted to address the needed action.

Within these categories, some recommendations are “qualified,” meaning that the proposal needs 

to meet certain conditions or address outstanding concerns before the project is funded. Some of 

these conditions may call for additional ISRP review, but most require minor clarifications and 

adjustments to methods and objectives by the sponsor in consultation with the Council and BPA 

in the final project selection process. 

In addition to these basic categories, the ISRP compares its recommendations with CBFWA’s. 

CBFWA uses three recommendation categories: 1) High Priority - these projects or tasks within a 

project are high priority within the subbasin and address a specific need within the subbasin 

summaries; 2) Recommended Action - these are good projects that cannot demonstrate a 

significant loss by not funding this year. These projects should be funded, but under a limited 

budget could be delayed temporarily without significant loss; 3) Do Not Fund - these projects are 

either technically inadequate or do not address a need within the subbasin summaries. These 

projects may not be appropriate for BPA funding. 

ISRP comparisons with CBFWA’s recommendations result in numerous combinations of 

agreement and disagreement. CBFWA’s “high priority” and “recommended action” categories 

are equivalent to the ISRP’s “fundable” recommendation. For many proposals the ISRP 

comparison with CBFWA is “Agree - Fundable.” This recommendation infers tacit agreement 

with CBFWA’s priority recommendation, although the ISRP is not making a specific “priority” 

recommendation with such agreement. When the ISRP makes a recommendation on priority, the 

comparison with CBFWA notes the ISRP’s priority, e.g. “Agree - Fundable, High Priority” or 

“Disagree - Fundable, Low Priority.” Certainly, the ISRP scientific review does not consider all 

the factors CBFWA does in making a management recommendation. However, the ISRP’s 

priority recommendations are based on the likely benefits to fish and wildlife and contribution to 

the FWP that will result from a proposal considering the proposal in the context of other 

proposals submitted, the subbasin summary, the FWP, and importantly, the technical quality of 

the proposal as evidence that it will be successfully implemented. Again, benefits to fish and 

wildlife and technical quality are the core of the 1996 amendment review criteria for the ISRP.

ISRP comments also include observations on budgetary, in lieu, and other issues that are not 

central to the scientific review. These observations do not dictate whether a project received a 

“fundable” or “not fundable” recommendation. Instead, these comments are intended to flag 

issues for the Council, BPA, CBFWA, and the public that require further inquiry.

Programmatic Issues

This programmatic section is a work in progress that has been developed iteratively over the 

course of provincial reviews. The ISRP anticipates that a final report on overarching 

programmatic issues will be issued in 2002 upon completion of the mainstem and systemwide 

review.

Stock Assessments

A basinwide salmonid stock assessment program is required as the basis for management and 

research of fish and fisheries in the Columbia Basin. The ISRP notes a lack of consensus among 

fisheries managers and scientists over a uniform stock assessment protocol. Salmonid stock 

inventory is key, in particular, to the management decisions on appropriate tools for recovery. 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

4

For anadromous salmonids, key variables required in an assessment include harvest, adult 

escapement, smolt yield to determine smolts per spawner as a function of spawner density, adults 

per smolt, and trends in these statistics over time periods that define the productivity and capacity 

within a climatological and/or ecological regime. A standardized, uniform index management 

system is required, where sites are selected to represent a particular geographic location 

(province), where detailed life stage monitoring may be required, usually at a fish enumeration 

facility. Other watersheds or reaches selected by a probabilistic sampling plan are tracked to 

determine relative abundance, via harvest records, spawner surveys, redd counts, fry abundance, 

or other means that have been calibrated to the index site results. Such a program is rare, if nonexistent, in the Columbia Basin, but examples of its use may be found in British Columbia for 

several different salmonid species, and on the eastern seaboard for Atlantic salmon. A program 

of stock assessment is briefly described on the Fisheries and Oceans Canada website 

(www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ops/fm/Salmon/stock.htm ). The site includes a listing of crucial 

information needs, and example cases.

From an adequate stock assessment and stock status analysis (e.g., healthy, critical, depressed, or 

endangered), a list of management tools appropriate to the stock’s recruitment level may be 

selected. These tools include choices within harvest, habitat, and hatchery management. In the 

recovery projects reviewed in the Columbia Basin Provinces, we rarely encountered a project 

justification that provided a solid reference to such a stock assessment framework. Projects need 

to coordinate their efforts towards a solid stock assessment framework, and indicate the linkage 

of stock assessment and stock status to their proposed work within project applications.

Stock assessment and watershed assessment are consistent with the required elements of a 

subbasin plan. Careful selection of index sites will be necessary, since these sites will become the 

standard for comparison, i.e. controls, for randomly selected sites in Tier 2 level monitoring and 

evaluation, or Tier 3 level research, as described below. Careful coordination of subbasin 

activities and effectiveness evaluation is thus centered on the stock assessment and index stream 

system.

Watershed Assessments and Analysis

Watershed analysis is a procedure used to characterize the human, aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial 

features, conditions, processes, and interactions (collectively referred to as "ecosystem elements") 

within a watershed. Watershed analysis is an issue-driven stage-setting process that establishes 

the context for subsequent project decision steps, as well as project prioritization within the 

watershed. It simplifies and shortens the preparation of project environmental analyses. It 

enhances the ability to estimate direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of management activities 

and guide their general type, location, and sequence within a watershed. 

Watershed assessment protocols used in the Columbia River Basin include:

1. Federal Guide to Watershed Analysis. 

www.southernregion.fs.fed.us/gwj/lrmp/plandocs/r8r9_water_assess_attach.htm

2. Washington Department Natural Resource Guide to Watershed Analysis. 

www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/sshiap/

3. Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual, by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board 

(OWEB). www.oweb.state.or.us/
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

5

4. The Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) model is being applied throughout the 

Columbia River Basin and elsewhere (www.mobrand.com).

The U.S. Forest Service and others have also used the protocol of Ecosystem Analysis at the 

Watershed Scale (EAWS). It is used to provide a systematic way to understand and organize 

ecosystem information. In its preliminary review of these five provinces, the ISRP provided both 

positive and cautionary statements on the use of EAWS, which apply to most watershed 

assessments. Specifically, watershed assessments as the basis of fish restoration objectives must 

be able to prioritize stream reaches based on actual vs. potential natural fish production. The 

prioritization should rely on assessments of relative survival by life-stage (such as egg-to-fry and 

parr-to-smolt for anadromous species) for each reach. The ISRP observes that developing such a 

watershed assessment approach is one of the biggest challenges in the provinces. The ISRP has 

noted significant progress toward an adequate assessment in some provinces (such as in the 

Yakima system, using EDT). Under data-poor conditions, an effective watershed assessment will 

be more difficult to produce and funding requests for an assessment should be carefully 

scrutinized.

Standard protocols for watershed assessment, prescription, rehabilitation, and evaluation in the 

Columbia River Basin are lacking, but needed. A useful example and resource can be found in 

Canada. On forested lands in British Columbia, the Watershed Restoration Program has 

developed guidelines for condition assessment, starting with overview assessments (Johnston and 

Moore 1995), which serve to indicate where stable conditions do not warrant further work and 

where more intensive levels of assessment are required on hill slopes, and in gullies, riparian 

areas, stream channels, and fish habitat. More information on these manuals may be obtained 

from the Ministry website: srmwww.gov.bc.ca/frco/programs/wrp/procedures.html. 

The next phase that requires a similar science-based approach is in the rehabilitation work. In 

British Columbia, Slaney and Zaldokas (1997) "Fish Habitat Rehabilitation Procedures" 

(srmwww.gov.bc.ca/frco/bookshop/tech.html) is frequently referenced. Similar guidelines are in 

development for Washington State (www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/ahg/).

After assessment, prescription, and rehabilitation, comes the task of monitoring and evaluation. 

Keeley and Walters (1994) provided recommendations for monitoring, using smolts as the 

response variable in numerous paired (treated and untreated) watersheds, but the program never 

evolved towards their recommended level of evaluation. Other frameworks have emerged for 

tracking project effectiveness (Gaboury and Wong 1999). The ISRP expands upon monitoring 

and evaluation in the “Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting of Results” section below.

The ISRP offers a further general observation about watershed restoration. Many watershed 

projects are based on a general assumption that the sponsors can conclude from the literature or 

from their personal experience how to improve conditions for salmonids and achieve some 

(undefined) concept of watershed health. If watershed restoration projects are to be credible, they 

should include physical criteria by which the relationship between “watershed health” and fish 

production will be measured. For example, when a rancher says “show me that if I leave 10% of 

my water in a stream, and keep my livestock X number of feet from a creek that the fish run will 

be significantly increased,” data need to be available to demonstrate this relationship. 

Additionally, a systematic monitoring and evaluation approach to watershed restoration will 

generate knowledge about the success and failures of alternative approaches and the appropriate 

incentives to achieve effective landowner cooperation. 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

6

Reasonable and Prudent Alternative 183 of the 2000 Biological Opinion for the Columbia River 

Hydrosystem emphasizes the need to address the ISRP concern about linking “watershed health” 

to fish production and calls for the initiation by 2003 of at least two studies focusing on each 

major management action. These management actions include irrigation diversion screens, 

barrier removals, sediment reductions, water quality improvement, nutrient enhancement, 

restoration of instream flows, riparian function restoration, stream complexity restoration, and 

nutrient enhancement.

Restoration Recovery Estimates

Projects proposing to do habitat restoration should attempt to estimate the expected contribution 

to fish runs and to relate these expectations to the historical and current runs in the subbasin. The 

expected costs of restoration should be placed in the context of dollars per expected adult return, 

for purposes of comparing among potential restoration projects (a relative measure). They should 

also compare alternative restoration strategies for the site on the same yield and cost basis, again 

for comparative purposes.

Exotic Species and Stocks 

Proposals should identify how the presence of exotic (introduced non-native) species or stocks in 

the proposal's subbasin or watershed will affect intended habitat restoration projects and the reestablishment of intended species/stocks. Most restoration projects target the historically 

abundant salmonids, yet other species now co-occur in many locations. Also, native stocks occur 

with other stocks of the same species that are not native to the waterbody (e.g., those introduced 

from other locations, often in hatchery programs). Species/stock interactions should be estimated 

– the mere presence of introduced species/stocks is not necessarily bad and may be an 

unchangeable feature of the landscape.

Prioritization of Habitat Protection and Restoration Projects 

Productive habitat for fish and wildlife provides complex structural diversity in space and time. 

The quality of habitat for different life-stages varies across and between watersheds, and from 

year-to-year, depending on factors such as flood frequency, snowpack, and fire. Populations 

persist under these variable conditions because they have a complex structure of sub-populations,

some strong and some vulnerable, distributed across a wide array of habitats. Extinction in one 

area can be compensated, in time, by emigration from an adjacent sub-population that was not 

decimated. Similarly, low production in one area may be compensated by above average 

production in adjacent areas. 

Scientists can make educated guesses regarding the optimal population structure and habitat 

patterns for a successful fish or wildlife population. Projects to halt disruption of, or to restore, 

watershed processes that produce productive natural habitat for fish and wildlife probably are 

beneficial in most situations, but by themselves, likely to make only minor contributions to 

restoration of the structure in space and time needed by a successful population of wildlife or fish. 

Our confidence in the “gardening approach” (piecemeal improvement of the appearance of 

habitat) to restoring the complexity needed for protecting fish and wildlife populations is low. For 

these reasons, we recommend that administrators and scientists participating in the Council’s Fish 

and Wildlife Program focus attention on identifying, as soon as possible, the overall spatial array 

of watersheds and habitat units needed to protect important populations. The ISRP believes that 

the best long-term strategies for protecting fish and wildlife habitat and restoring viable 

populations are to purchase lands, conservation easements, and water rights for instream flow. 

The greatest scientific confidence for protecting the needs of populations resides in protecting as 

many areas maintained by natural processes as possible, at least until specific needs are better 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

7

understood (e.g., ISG, Return to the River 2000; www.nwcouncil.org/library/return/2000-

12.htm). 

In September 2001, the ISRP reviewed the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes’ Habitat 

Acquisition and Restoration Plan (19910600) to determine whether it provided scientifically 

sound criteria and protocol to prioritize habitat acquisitions. The ISRP found that document 

described a good plan for habitat acquisition and restoration of wildlife habitat in mitigation for 

lost aquatic and riparian habitat due to the Kerr Project No. 5 located on the Flathead River and 

could serve as a useful model to other habitat and restoration proposals with some minor revision 

of the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) component of the plan.

Planning and Implementation 

Planning and implementation proposals for some watersheds need to be combined and clearly 

phased over time. Multiple organizations are sometimes proposing planning exercises for the 

same watershed. Such duplication is unlikely to be funded. It is to the advantage of watershed 

planners to join forces to come up with a single, coherent strategy and plan. Most importantly, 

the Council is about to undertake a subbasin planning effort for the entire Columbia Basin. 

Planning proposals should be clearly linked to and not duplicate the Council’s effort.

Supplementation as an Experiment 

At the conclusion of the Blue Mountain, Mountain Snake, Upper and Middle Snake, Columbia 

Cascade, and Lower Columbia and Estuary provincial reviews, the ISRP has an increasing 

concern that the Columbia Basin’s suite of large-scale supplementation projects (Hood River, 

Yakima, NEOH [Northeast Oregon], NPTH [Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery], ISS [Idaho 

Supplementation Studies], LSRCP [Lower Snake River Compensation Program] and others) do 

not add up to a complete coherent test of the major hypotheses associated with supplementation 

as a rebuilding and recovery tool. If so, critical uncertainties may remain unresolved indefinitely.

The basin is investing very large amounts of money and resources into supplementation, both as 

an experimental test of the technique and as a rebuilding tool to achieve the FWP’s goals. Chief 

among the supplementation programs reviewed to date are the Yakima Cle Elum projects, the ISS 

suite of projects, and the NEOH projects. Numerous other proposals have smaller levels of 

implicit and explicit supplementation built into the projects, e.g., Proposal #29007 “Okanogan 

Kelt Reconditioning” and #29006 “Supplement Spring Chinook in Early Winters Creek.” The 

ISRP has provided extensive critical comments on these projects, including many suggestions on 

how to increase the experimental rigor of these projects toward addressing critical uncertainties 

about supplementation. The ISRP is concerned that without a larger experimental framework that 

links all supplementation projects in the basin together specifically to test the major hypotheses 

and reduce uncertainties, the huge investment presently being made will not resolve the issues to 

any real degree. If so, the present often-acrimonious debates about supplementation will likely 

continue unabated. 

The ISRP is aware of ongoing efforts of three scientific advisory groups to provide advice to the 

Council on “supplementation”: the Council’s Artificial Production Review, the Independent 

Scientific Advisory Board’s (ISAB) recently initiated review of supplementation, and the present 

and continuing ISRP review of project proposals within Provinces. The ISRP recommends that 

ongoing review efforts on artificial production and supplementation be more closely linked 

together to try to reach consensus among the scientific advisory groups on whether the basin’s 

investment in testing supplementation is likely to be successful at resolving critical uncertainties. 

If not, then consensus on an overall basinwide experimental framework and design is needed.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

8

Reintroductions 

Numerous projects throughout the basin are focusing on the reintroduction of salmonid species to 

systems where they have been extirpated. In the Columbia Cascade Province for example, these 

include Project 199604000 (Evaluate the Feasibility and Risks of Coho Reintroduction in the 

mid-Columbia), Project 200001300 (Evaluate an Experimental Re-introduction of Sockeye 

Salmon into Skaha Lake), and Project 29016 (Return of Sockeye Salmon to their Historic Range). 

Many of these projects appear to offer promising initial results that, if coupled with strong 

monitoring and evaluation components, may yield new insights into restoration potentials 

elsewhere in the basin. 

It is important that reintroduction projects not be lumped with supplementation projects, as this 

has the potential to confound the region’s needed assessment of the efficacy of supplementation 

as a recovery tool. Supplementation and reintroduction projects share many common aspects (use 

of artificial production facilities and techniques, goal of increasing naturally occurring fish, etc.) 

and concerns (carrying capacity, impacts on non-target species, different selection pressures for 

naturally spawning and artificially produced fish, and the potential for conflicting restoration, 

production, and harvest goals). However, they differ in the constraints under which they operate. 

Many of the issues that necessarily constrain supplementation activities, such as minimizing 

genetic and fitness risks to an indigenous depressed stock, are of smaller or little concern in 

reintroduction programs. 

Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting of Results 

As specified in the 1996 Amendment to the Power Act, a primary review function of the ISRP is 

to determine if projects are based on sound scientific principles and are likely to benefit fish and 

wildlife. Integral to this determination is whether projects monitor and evaluate progress and 

report results that allow measurement of benefits. Project proposals often lack detailed 

description of the kind of monitoring and evaluation that is necessary in sound scientific 

programs; however, significant improvement has been observed in some recent cases. 

Monitoring has been categorized in a hierarchical sequence (Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3) in the 

NMFS All-H document (Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish: Final Basinwide Salmon 

Recovery Strategy, Volume 1, Table 4). These guiding principles for a hierarchical monitoring 

program are being further developed and pilot programs are proposed in the federal Research 

Monitoring and Evaluation effort (RME effort) for the 2000 FCRPS Biological Opinion by the 

Action Agencies (Bonneville Power Administration, United States Army Corps of Engineers, and 

the Bureau of Reclamation) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 

Four hierarchical levels of monitoring have been recognized and recommended by the ISRP in 

review of project proposals. These levels are in close agreement with the three tier hierarchical 

sequence described in the NMFS All-H document (with the addition of implementation 

monitoring) and the RME effort. However, some discussion is warranted here because the 

objectives and scale of individual projects is sometimes different from the overarching Columbia 

basinwide objectives of the Action Agencies and the NMFS. Also, we have modified our jargon 

somewhat from earlier ISRP reports to make the terms more consistent with the All-H document 

and the relatively new RME effort. 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

9

Four levels of monitoring should be considered: 1) implementation and/or compliance 

monitoring, 2) trend monitoring of project results (corresponds closely and may contribute to 

NMFS Tier 1 - Landscape Scale Status Monitoring), 3) statistical monitoring of habitat and fish 

and wildlife populations (NMFS Tier 2 – Population Scale Status Monitoring), and 4) research 

monitoring in experiments (NMFS Tier 3 – Action Effectiveness Monitoring). 

Implementation/Compliance Monitoring is used as a term to describe monitoring of task 

completion or monitoring of compliance with regulations. For example, miles of stream fenced, 

number of culverts removed, completion of reports, irrigation diversions maintained, number of 

smolts released, etc. might be reported in project proposals. Implementation/compliance 

monitoring data are often given in ongoing project proposals to the Council’s Fish and Wildlife 

Program and are often proposed to be collected for future projects. Implementation/compliance 

monitoring results must be presented, but sound science requires that project results also be 

measured in terms of benefits to fish and wildlife using one of the following levels of monitoring.

Tier 1 Trend (or routine) monitoring of project results obtains repeated measurements, 

usually representing a single spatial unit over a period of time, with a view to quantifying changes 

over time. Changes must be distinguished from background noise. This is usually a low level of 

monitoring that corresponds closely in philosophy or contributes data to the NMFS Tier 1. Tier 1 

trend monitoring on individual project sites does not provide statistical inductive inferences to 

larger areas or time periods (e.g., does not establish status of populations over time) and does not 

establish cause and effect relationships (i.e., is not experimental research). However, Tier 1 trend 

monitoring on similar projects replicated over time and space can provide compelling evidence 

for general conclusions. An example of Tier 1 trend monitoring would be repeat visits to a 

tributary habitat improvement site (perhaps every 3-5 years) to verify presence/absence of adult 

spawners (or redds, carcasses, eggs, juveniles, non-native species, etc.) using a written protocol.

Tier 2 statistical monitoring of habitat and fish and wildlife populations (Population Scale 

Status Monitoring) provides statistical inferences to larger areas and longer time periods and 

requires both probabilistic selection of study sites and repeated visits. A good model for statistical 

monitoring of aquatic habitat and fish population parameters is the Oregon Plan for Salmon and 

Watersheds Monitoring Program (Nicholas 1997a, 1997b, 1999) as implemented in the Oregon 

coastal coho streams and in the John Day Basin of the Columbia Plateau Province. The Oregon 

Plan, successfully implemented for estimation of coho distribution and abundance, applied a 

rigorous design for probabilistic site selection to answer key monitoring questions. Individual 

proposals to the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program can support larger Tier 2 statistical 

monitoring projects such as the Oregon Plan by using the same field methods and methods to 

select study sites that contribute information to Tier 2 statistical monitoring. Most large projects 

should implement sampling designs that allow Tier 2 statistical monitoring or contribute data to 

statistical monitoring.

Tier 3 research monitoring in experiments (Action Effectiveness Monitoring) is for those 

projects or groups of projects whose objectives include establishment of mechanistic links 

between management actions and salmon or other fish or wildlife population response. Bisbal 

(2001) defines this level of effort as effects or response monitoring; the repeated measurement of 

environmental variables to detect changes caused by external influences. The key words here are 

“establishment of mechanistic links” and “detect changes caused by external influences.” 

Generally, the results of Tier 3 research monitoring qualify for publication in the refereed 

scientific literature. Examples of Tier 3 monitoring would include: 1) projects to evaluate the 

effects of different levels of fertilization on growth and survival of juvenile salmonids with 

streams selected randomly for reference and treatment; 2) projects to evaluate the survival rates of 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

10

adult salmonids caught and released from tangle nets; 3) projects to evaluate the survival rates of 

juveniles migrating past a dam at different levels of spill and turbine passage; 4) projects to 

evaluate the swimming ability of lamprey during upstream migration; 5) projects to evaluate the 

effectiveness of various land restoration or management techniques, etc.

The Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program calls for monitoring and evaluation of biological and 

environmental conditions at the scale of provinces and subbasins. Tier 2 statistical monitoring for 

population status (habitat, fish and wildlife populations) will be required to provide inductive 

inferences to entire provinces, subbasins, and many watersheds, because it is impossible to survey 

every square foot of every stream bottom, riparian zone, and uplands area in these large regions 

every month of every year for decades. Many of the Columbia Basins’ projects for “monitoring” 

fish and wildlife species (redds, spawners, juveniles, etc.) currently limit surveys to “index sites” 

selected by professional judgment in past years. Use of such data for inferences to larger areas is 

problematic, and requires additional data obtained from a special design in order to calibrate the 

relation between the index sites and the larger area as considered from the perspective of Tier 2 

statistical monitoring. The proponents of such projects should plan their monitoring programs to 

allow for valid inductive inferences to the target areas. To maintain consistency of calibration, 

sites and methods used in the past should be continued along with the new sites (and possibly 

new methods) in a new Tier 2 statistical monitoring program for at least enough time to obtain an 

adequate sample for calibration. Depending on the original reasons for selecting the index sites, 

there may be good reason to continue monitoring at those locations, which would henceforth be 

treated as a special, defined stratum in the design. 

We offer the further following suggestions for implementation/compliance, trend (routine), 

statistical, or research monitoring in projects funded under the Council’s Fish and Wildlife 

Program. For some projects, monitoring is made difficult by the localized nature of the project 

compared to the larger spatial scale on which the ultimate ecological responses (e.g., increased 

populations of fish or wildlife) can be expected. This is particularly true of many proposals for 

which the target species to be benefited are anadromous fishes. For such projects, monitoring can 

in part be addressed at the level of the subbasin plan and in part with separate larger-scale Tier II 

statistical monitoring projects. These parts need to be coordinated, and the overall plan needs to 

describe and explain the coordination. Monitoring of ecological conditions and fish stock status in 

a subbasin as a whole must be sufficient to reveal whether the initial diagnosis of the subbasin 

was correct and whether the ecological problems are being solved by the cumulative effects of the 

projects in that subbasin. The large-scale aspects of monitoring may best be addressed by separate 

Tier II projects that have the explicit objective of monitoring ecological conditions and stock 

status for a large area (e.g., a subbasin, basin, or region). Eventually the adequacy of the 

monitoring for an individual project would be judged in terms of the combined project-specific 

monitoring in the proposal and the linkage (which also should be described in the proposal) to the 

larger scale monitoring and cumulative impact assessment in the subbasin. 

At the level of individual projects, monitoring should test for the proximate effectiveness of the 

project’s activities. Each project should propose the level of monitoring that is needed, should 

justify the adequacy of this level of monitoring for determining success of the project, and should 

outline the sampling design and methods that will be applied to attain monitoring goals. The 

monitoring plan may be provided directly as part of a project proposal (thus included in its 

background, methods and budget) or may be provided by specific reference through other parallel 

or larger scale (e.g., subbasin level) project proposals. In the latter case, it will be necessary that 

the project proposal for the parallel or larger scale monitoring project provide enough detail that 

the adequacy of the monitoring for purposes of the lower level project can be evaluated. Tier II 

monitoring and evaluation at the basin, province, or subbasin scale may realize additional savings 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

11

if proponents of related projects collectively design and implement their monitoring and 

evaluation activities. 

Proposals must indicate plans for monitoring and evaluation of project effectiveness, and, for 

ongoing projects, include summaries of monitoring data, figures and tables, even if the 

monitoring is conducted by another project. Reviewers look for a monitoring and evaluation plan 

or a project link to a larger monitoring and evaluation program that can help determine whether 

an action provides biologically measurable results, ultimately in terms of fish or wildlife 

numbers. The ISRP is not necessarily recommending major research-level data collection for 

projects. Most Tier I and II monitoring does not provide strong evidence of cause and effect, 

which requires an explicit experimental framework. Rather, we envision use of cost-effective, 

consistent, written procedures that can be easily replicated by new personnel. 

Monitoring provides the information that will be used to evaluate the success or failure of a 

project to contribute to the ultimate goals of fish and wildlife recovery, preservation, or 

mitigation. Thus, each project should explicitly state its local, specific, and short-term goals as 

well as the ways in which these contribute to the larger longer-term goals of fish and wildlife 

remediation and mitigation. These goals should be cast in the form of measurable biological 

results and criteria for success, such as habitat parameters and fish and wildlife numbers or 

performance measures. This level of biological monitoring with direct ties to goals is required 

under the 1996 Amendment to the Power Act. Bisbal (2001) provides some useful guidelines for 

fish and wildlife evaluation plans, including choice of indicators to monitor, management needs, 

planning of the evaluation component, the importance of sampling design, consideration of the 

statistical analyses that are anticipated, and the value of pilot studies to test techniques and 

performance standards.

MONITORING FOR SURVIVAL AND SAR USING PIT-TAGS

Much has been learned about survival and return rates of salmonids based on PIT-TAG 

technology. Undoubtedly, PIT-TAGS will continue to play a central role in design and analysis 

of individual research programs and scientific observational studies. However, the ISRP believes 

that a coordinated annual operations and management project is needed for application and 

detection of PIT-TAGS in support of long term monitoring and evaluation of out-migration 

survival of juveniles and return rates of adults.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON AQUATIC MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The ISRP emphasizes its support of the proponents of projects in the Columbia Cascade, Upper 

and Middle Snake, and Lower Columbia and Estuary Provinces to work with all Idaho, Oregon, 

Washington, and Montana Provinces to develop compatible aquatic monitoring and evaluation 

procedures with common field procedures and probabilistic site selection for the entire Columbia 

River Basin. 

Principal Investigators of aquatic monitoring projects should interact closely with Project No. 

199801600 in the Columbia Plateau (Jim Ruzycki and Richard Carmichael, ODFW, “Monitor 

Natural Escapement and Productivity of John Day Basin Spring Chinook Salmon”). ODFW 

revised this proposal to create a comprehensive plan to include all monitoring and evaluation for 

all anadromous salmonid life-stages and habitats in the John Day portion of the Columbia River 

Plateau Province. The M&E program in the John Day Basin is apparently developing as a model 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

12

for the Oregon section of the Columbia Basin and is being carefully reviewed by agencies in 

Washington.

The ISRP recommends that the Council endorse and support these efforts to develop standard 

sampling and data collection protocols within the Columbia Basin. It is extremely difficult to 

change a monitoring plan once it is in place. With the increased emphasis on monitoring and 

evaluation in ISRP project reviews, this may represent a one-time opportunity to make progress 

on this difficult task. We also recommend that the proponents of all aquatic habitat monitoring 

consider using aquatic habitat data collection protocols recommended in Johnson et al. (2001).

SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON TERRESTRIAL MONITORING AND EVALUATION

In response to the ISRP’s comments and the Council’s recommendations, the Albeni Falls 

Workgroup prepared a Draft Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the Albeni Falls Wildlife 

Mitigation Project, dated August 2001 and submitted it for Council and ISRP review. The ISRP 

review suggested that the plan be revised to include systematic sampling (see 

www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2001-4AlbeniFalls.pdf). Apparently, the draft plan is being 

further revised. Although the revision and subsequent review are not complete, it seems likely 

that this plan will be recommended as a model for terrestrial (including riparian) monitoring in 

the Columbia Basin. We encourage the proponents of terrestrial monitoring projects in all 

provinces to work closely with the Albeni Falls Workgroup and the Confederated Salish and 

Kootenai Tribes to develop common site selection procedures and data collection protocols for 

terrestrial monitoring within the Provinces of the Columbia Basin. In the Upper and Middle 

Snake Provinces, the Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation projects (199505700 though 03) have 

adopted the Albeni Falls M&E Plan for use in southern Idaho in wetland cover types and are in 

the process of expanding that plan to include techniques for monitoring upland habitat and 

wildlife species.

In particular we have suggested that an intensification of the National Resources Inventory (NRI) 

survey sites and data collection protocols would serve the Columbia Basin well. See the 

Proposals #200002300 and #200020116, the ISRP reviews in the Columbia Plateau, and the NRI 

web site www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/NRI/. The Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program includes 

objectives for fish and wildlife habitat in subbasins and in fact for the entire Columbia Basin. It 

is our understanding that subsets of data collected in the NRI could be utilized at the present time 

to make statistical inferences (to variables currently measured by the NRI) in the Columbia Basin 

and in some of the larger subbasins. See Oregon and Washington results from the NRI on the 

sites: www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/nri/index.htm, and www.wa.nrcs.usda.gov/NRI. Monitoring of 

habitat and other land uses on the scale of subbasins (e.g., the Salmon or Methow subbasins) and 

the Columbia Basin will require development of a system wide probabilistic sampling plan 

similar to the NRI or use of the NRI with appropriate variables measured. The ISRP believes that 

a coordinated “top-down” plan that can be intensified to make inferences to “small areas” (e.g., 

the size of projects in the Albeni Falls Dam Wildlife Mitigation Projects) is the best long-term 

strategy for the Columbia Basin.

HABITAT EVALUATION PROCEDURES AND HABITAT SUITABILITY INDICES

In reviewing the Albeni Falls plan for wildlife monitoring and evaluation and Habitat Evaluation 

Procedures (HEP), the ISRP noted that the proposal includes provision for long-term HEP 

evaluations. We suggest that effort put into long-term repetition of HEP analyses may not be very 

useful and that use of HEP analyses and their associated Habitat Units (HUs) to guide land 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

13

management may lead to counterproductive management practices. HEP is based on the 

assumption that habitat suitability for a species can be described by a Habitat Suitability Index 

(HSI). These indices vary in quality and many are based on limited information. Measures of 

uncertainty in the form of confidence bounds on HSIs are rarely given, but have been found to be 

very broad. Management to produce or maintain habitat that is predicted by an index of untested 

quality to provide good habitat for a particular species is not warranted when better and more 

direct information on wildlife is available. We urge the program away from continuing emphasis 

on HEP evaluation as a tool for long-term evaluation or management planning. 

We have noted before that the HEP procedure was a reasonable way to assess loss and mitigation 

initially. The Wildlife Program developed with the expectation that Habitat Units (HUs) could 

provide a proxy for direct wildlife measures and so an increase in HUs could be expected in a 

well-managed program and could provide a yardstick for measuring recovery. However, the 

development of good-quality direct monitoring programs will make this coarse approximation 

obsolete as an evaluation tool. The Albeni Working Group is prudent in allowing that they 

expect to at least maintain baseline HUs and they will allow a 20% decrease in this before 

invoking a management response. 

Management Relevance of Scientific Proposals 

Proposals with a strong scientific/technical background section often are not well linked to the 

management strategies for the subbasin and to other projects underway or planned for the 

subbasin. The ISRP encourages those proponents with primarily academic backgrounds to make 

concerted efforts to learn about, and to connect with, the fish and wildlife management 

infrastructure at the subbasin and province levels. Inquiries are encouraged from potential 

proponents of a project to the Council staff, CBFWA staff, or the relevant state or tribal fish and 

game agencies.

References

Monitoring and Evaluation Section

Bisbal, G.A. 2001. Conceptual design of monitoring and evaluation plans for fish and wildlife in 

the Columbia River ecosystem. Environmental Management 28(4): 433-453.

Independent Scientific Group (ISG). 2000. Return to the River 2000: restoration of salmonid 

fishes in the Columbia River ecosystem. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon.

Johnson, D. H., N. Pittman, E. Wilder, J. A. Silver, R. W. Plotnikoff, B. C. Mason, K. K. Jones, 

P. Roger, T. A. O’Neil, C. Barrett. 2001. Inventory and Monitoring of Salmon Habitat in the 

Pacific Northwest - Directory and Synthesis of Protocols for Management/Research and 

Volunteers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 211pp.

Nicholas, J.W. (Principal Writer). 1997a. Monitoring Program, Chapter 16. The Oregon Plan:

Oregon coastal salmon restoration initiative. State of Oregon, Salem, Oregon. (www.oregonplan.org/)

Nicholas, J.W. (Principal Writer). 1997b. Monitoring Program, Addendum to Chapter 15b. The 

Oregon Plan: Revisions to the steelhead supplement. State of Oregon, Salem, Oregon. 

(www.oregon-plan.org/)
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

14

Nicholas, J.W. (Principal Writer). 1999. Implementation of the monitoring program, Chapter 

15b. The Oregon Plan: Draft steelhead supplement. State of Oregon, Salem, Oregon. 

(www.oregon-plan.org/)

Watershed Assessment Section

Fish Habitat Assessment procedures are now on line at

srmwww.gov.bc.ca/frco/programs/wrp/fhap/index.html. This is also the

link to these documents on line:

Keeley, E.R. & C.J. Walters. 1994. The BC Watershed Restoration Program: Summary of the 

Experimental Design, Monitoring and Restoration Techniques Workshop. BC Watershed 

Restoration Management Report. 34p. 284Kb

Johnston, N.T. & Slaney, P.A. 1996. Fish Habitat Assessment Procedures, BC Watershed 

Restoration Technical Circular. 97p. 576Kb

Johnston, N.T. & Moore, G.D. 1995. Guidelines for Planning Watershed Restoration Projects. 

BC Watershed Restoration Technical Circular. 52p. 130Kb

Slaney, P.A., and Zaldokas, D. [Editors]. 1997. Fish Habitat Rehabilitation Procedures. BC 

Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 9. 341p. 7.1Mb

Gaboury, M. & Wong, R. 1999. A Framework for Conducting Effectiveness Evaluations of 

Watershed Restoration Projects. BC Watershed Restoration Technical Circular. 33p.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

15

Final Recommendations and Comments on Each Proposal

PART I. Upper and Middle Snake Provinces

Comments and recommendations on proposals for the Middle Snake Province are presented first followed 

by those for the Upper Snake Province. Within those province sections, proposals are grouped into 

subbasins, and within each group, proposals are arranged in the order they were presented at the ISRP site 

visit workshop. In general, the CBFWA review comments for these two provinces were particularly 

helpful, insightful, and provided useful information for the ISRP in its final review.

Middle Snake Province

BOISE/PAYETTE/WEISER RIVER SUBBASINS

ProjectID: 199505701

Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation - Middle Snake

Sponsor: IDFG & IOSC

Subbasin: Boise

FY03 Request: $3,889,703

5YR Estimate: $21,913,421

Short Description: Protect, enhance, restore and maintain wildlife habitats to mitigate for construction 

losses at Anderson Ranch, Black Canyon and Deadwood dams.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified - see comments)

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable (Qualified)

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. This is one of four Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation proposals (199505700 though 03). All 

are more or less identical. Project history and some of the text are identical. Apparently the Southern Idaho 

Wildlife Mitigation (SIWM) project was split into Upper and Middle Snake with the IDFG/IOSC, 

submitting proposals in both places along with the Shoshone-Bannock and Shoshone-Paiute Tribes. The 

ISRP comments on each are mostly identical (except for the plant center in 199505702). 

The proponents have adopted the Albeni Falls M&E Plan for use in southern Idaho in wetland cover types 

and are in the process of expanding that plan to include techniques for monitoring upland habitat and 

wildlife species. They anticipate having the draft Southern Idaho Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 

completed and ready for review by August 1, 2002. The plan should be reviewed by the ISRP before 

implementation. Also, the proponents should review the response provided by the sponsors of Proposal 

#32008. Their draft wildlife monitoring and evaluation plan constitutes a significant step toward 

development of wildlife monitoring protocols that might be recommended to Provinces in the Columbia 

Basin.

ISRP Final Review Comments for 32008: 

The ISRP appreciates the proponents efforts in providing an excellent (but, understandably 

incomplete) draft wildlife inventory and monitoring plan. This draft provides a step toward 

development of a model plan for inventory, monitoring, and evaluation of wildlife that might be 

recommended by CBFWA to state and federal agencies and tribes in the Columbia Basin.

The draft plans for inventory, monitoring and evaluation of wildlife species is an excellent 

response and represents a good step toward methods that might be recommended throughout the 

Columbia Basin. The habitat evaluation section of the plan appears to be minimal, emphasizing 

the need for the region to develop common site selection protocols and data collection methods for 

monitoring of terrestrial habitat. The ISRP encourages the proponents to continue the association 

with the interagency work group to develop plans for monitoring and evaluation of wildlife and 

terrestrial habitat.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

16

CBFWA Review Comments:

The proposed work provides the initiation of O&M. Project sponsors indicate credits will be applied to 

Anderson Ranch, Deadwood, or Black Canyon.

ProjectID: 32020

Inventory and Assessment of Stream/Riparian Resources, upper Boise and upper Payette River Subbasins, 

Idaho

Sponsor: WHA

Subbasin: Boise

FY03 Request: $176,000

5YR Estimate: $176,000

Short Description: Apply a hierarchical classification to identify complexes of stream/riparian resources 

with distinctive ecological potential and divide the complexes into more discrete areas based on condition 

relative to a progression of states. 

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable 

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, Low Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable at low priority. This project has the potential for providing useful data to subbasin planning and 

the EDT modeling effort. The ISRP acknowledges that the sponsor provided an excellent response to our 

continuing concerns for monitoring and evaluation the accuracy of mapping projects and for use of the data 

in long-term aquatic habitat monitoring efforts. For example, the proponent responded that mapped points 

would be checked with actual field visits using a double-blind sampling scheme. If funded, the project 

should be focused on and integrated into EDT more closely than it is at this point in order for the product to 

be directly useful in future EDT applications and subbasin planning. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

CBFWA found that the proposed work is similar to the mapping effort submitted by the Northwest Habitat 

Institute in previous provinces. This may be useful when subbasin planning begins in this province and 

needs to be coordinated with EDT. CBFWA questions the specific need for this project and suggests the 

benefits to fish and wildlife are low. The proposal states the “proposed inventory and assessment can be 

used to enhance both completed and ongoing TMDL efforts, and as a basis for remediation to achieve 

TMDLs.” CBFWA expressed concern regarding the appropriateness of funding TMDL’s through the 

NWPPC Program. 

ProjectID: 32021

Lower Boise River Wetlands Restoration Project

Sponsor: Pioneer Irrigation District

Subbasin: Boise

FY03 Request: $164,500

5YR Estimate: $3,852,000

Short Description: Restore wetlands in the Lower Boise River watershed in order to mitigate the 

inundation of wetland habitats caused by the construction of Anderson Ranch Dam. Improvements in 

water quality will be an integral part of restoration of the wetlands.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable 

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, Low Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable at low priority. Quoting from the proposal, the proposal would create a wetland to eventually be 

a part of the "dynamic trading of pollutant loading" to the lower Boise River, principally involving 

phosphorus and sediment. The Council should carefully review this project to ensure that it qualifies for 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

17

offsite mitigation responsibilities. The project would likely have some minimal wildlife benefits, but 

benefits were not well articulated in the proposal or response. The ISRP agrees with CBFWA that sensitive 

species would not benefit. The proposal lacks a fully developed monitoring and evaluation plan for data, 

both for water quality and fish and wildlife benefits.

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project will provide for the removal of phosphorous and sediment from the lower portion of the Boise 

River. The IDEQ has identified phosphorous and sediment as having negative effects on the white 

sturgeon population in the Hells Canyon reach of the Snake River. Although the sponsors suggested the 

project would provide for sensitive species, the reviewers question the benefits to sensitive species. 

Reviewers indicated that there are nine target species in this area and that the proposed work would provide 

habitat only for mink and waterfowl. CBFWA found that this proposal does not provide enough detail to 

determine if the construction phase should be funded and suggest that the proposal be reviewed after the 

design phase is completed. Wildlife would likely benefit from the wetland creation, but dredging and 

removal of vegetation to remove accumulated silts and nutrients would cause disturbances approximately 

every five years. It is unclear if fisheries benefits would result. In fact, CBFWA suggests that thermal 

heating in the settling cells and wetlands could lead to elevated water temperatures downstream. CBFWA 

suggests that the proposed project is primarily a water quality project, with potential side benefits to 

wildlife. Monitoring and evaluation for water quality was included in the original proposal, but monitoring 

and evaluation for wildlife resources was not. A wildlife monitoring and evaluation plan still is yet to be 

developed.

The project would benefit from cost-share arrangements for funding from other sources. All listed 

cooperators are shown to contribute “in-kind” services or funds. Although the benefit of this project, 

combined with others throughout the basin, could have lasting benefits, impacts addressed are not entirely 

attributable to the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS). CBFWA was unclear as to how this 

project qualifies as offsite mitigation for impacts caused by the FCRPS. Due to the relatively minor 

impacts associated with power operations, it seems the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, State 

of Idaho and the counties would have greater responsibilities to provide funding to mitigate for these 

impacts, rather than BPA.

The proposed conservation easements or land acquisitions appear to be very high cost at $5000/acre and 

$10,000/acre, respectively. The proposal does not describe how wildlife benefits will be calculated and 

credited. 

CBFWA found that coordination with BPA and the fish and wildlife managers appears to have been 

inadequate.

ProjectID: 32009

Squaw Creek Cooperative Fisheries Restoration Project

Sponsor: RC&D

Subbasin: Payette

FY03 Request: $43,750

5YR Estimate: $790,250

Short Description: Assess and ameliorate the significant factors that have resulted in a severely depressed 

bull trout metapopulation within the major streams of the Squaw Creek drainage.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Partially Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part to support stream inventory and to improve planning and coordination efforts with IDFG 

and other parties. This is a program that involves a lot of groups and interests in the community, but needs 

further collaboration with state and federal land managers. The proposal would work to bolster bull trout in 

one of the five key watersheds in the Payette drainage as identified in the Idaho Governor's bull trout 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

18

recovery plan. Basic building blocks appear to be in place for a watershed level program, but it seems to be 

in the initial planning stage. The ISRP supports funding objective 1, tasks a and b, for stream inventory 

and data integration and objective 3, tasks a and b, for streams surveys to identify fish passage barriers. 

Reviewers suggest holding off on supporting all or part of the diversion screening and fish passage 

improvements at this time.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Due to the weakness of the proposed methods and the apparent lack of coordination with IDFG, CBFWA 

suggests that this project should be reclassified as a “Recommended Action” until the following comments 

are answered in a satisfactory manner. Are all culvert replacement activities occurring on private lands? 

Are bull trout present in Squaw Creek above the mouth of Poison Creek? What is the current population 

status of the Squaw Creek bull trout population compared to other populations within the Subbasin? How 

will the sponsor “characterize channel condition” during downstream migration of post-spawning adults? 

In addition, CBFWA expressed concern relative to the lack of information pertaining to the type of poison 

that would be used by the sponsors. CBFWA suggests that until the status of the bull trout population is 

identified, poisoning activities should not be implemented. 

ProjectID: 32011

Mitigation of marine-derived nutrient loss in the Boise-Payette-Weiser subbasin.

Sponsor: IDFG, WSU, UI, PNW, OSC

Subbasin: Boise

FY03 Request: $354,789

5YR Estimate: $1,072,548

Short Description: The project replaces marine derived nutrients using salmon analogs and salmon 

carcasses in the Boise-Payette-Weiser subbasin. Aquatic and terrestrial effects of nutrient treatments will 

be monitored using isotope and lipid analysis.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. This is a research project: of the first year budget, approximately $306K is for research (4 

graduate students from 2 schools) and about $40K is to actually distribute the nutrients. It is a technically 

well-designed effort. It does go beyond ongoing BPA-funded studies by evaluating terrestrial effects; 

however, its long-term benefits to resident fish are uncertain, and the potential application of results to 

anadromous fish is not described. Because, as the response states, this is a management action to mitigate 

for nutrient loss related to anadromous fish loss in these subbasins, the critical issue is how practical and 

feasible is annual fertilization in the blocked areas (unlike that in areas currently occupied by anadromous 

fish, where results of fertilization studies indicate a value of restoring those runs). Unfortunately this study 

might not directly include bull trout responses to fertilization and that weakness should be corrected if at all 

possible. Reviewers were supportive of the basic research aspects of the proposal, but concerned that longterm management applications were not more developed in the proposal and response. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

The loss of marine derived nutrients has been identified as a factor limiting the productivity of bull trout in 

Idaho and Oregon and is viewed as an issue that should be a region-wide concern/investigation. Reviewers 

believe that results from this study could likely be applied throughout the range of distribution for bull trout 

where anadromous fish have been removed. Reviewers suggested that the proposed work, as it relates to 

bull trout, should be implemented in a basin-wide approach; however, reviewers questioned whether the 

work should be initiated now or wait until results become available from some of the nutrient projects that 

were funded through the 2001 Innovative process. The reviewers suggested that pursuing this work is a 

High Priority; however, review of data from the innovative projects may be useful before the 

implementation of this project thus coordination with ongoing projects is essential. 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

19

ProjectID: 32013

Fishery Restoration of the Gold Fork River, Idaho

Sponsor: IDFG and IOSC

Subbasin: Payette

FY03 Request: $344,500

5YR Estimate: $2,429,500

Short Description: Fish populations in the Gold Fork River can be recovered by reconnecting the habitat 

and expanding the range of bull trout and redband trout populations. By creating fish passage in the 

drainage we will reconnect 44 miles of resident fish habitat.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part. The proposal would work to strengthen the bull trout population in one of the five key 

watersheds in the Payette drainage as identified in the Idaho Governor's bull trout recovery plan. Some 

uncertainty remains regarding the future potential of Cascade Reservoir to support bull trout given its 

suboptimal physical and chemical conditions, but reviewers agree with the response of project proponents 

that the risk is relatively low. The ISRP notes the thorough technical review provided by CBFWA-RFC and 

agrees with support for Objective 1 (brook trout removal, stabilization, and enhancement of bull trout 

populations). Funding for Objective 2 (removal of all man-made passage barriers) should be delayed and 

contingent on successful completion of Objective 1 components. The proponents are also referred to this 

report’s programmatic section on monitoring and evaluation.

CBFWA Review Comments:

CBFWA suggests that this anadromous substitution project will benefit bull trout if brook trout can be 

successfully removed; however, the proposed methodology to eradicate brook trout is vague. CBFWA 

suggests that Antimycin combined with selective electrofishing has the best track record for removing 

nuisance species from running water. Lakes can be successfully treated with rotenone during late fall, just 

prior to ice formation. The sequential strategy for removing brook trout in stages between temporary 

barriers has merit and should be funded and assessed for effectiveness before initiating Objective 2. The 

narrative states that bull trout will not be stocked until brook trout are reduced to acceptable levels. 

Unfortunately, because the stream habitat has been degraded by excessive sedimentation, CBFWA believes 

that brook trout are likely to rebound if not removed entirely. Instream habitat should be repaired to reduce 

the amount of fine sediments and protect riparian vegetation for thermal cover. Bull trout require cool water 

temperatures and clean substrates, whereas brook trout can tolerate degraded stream conditions. Barriers 

isolating the remnant population of bull trout should not be removed if brook trout can invade from 

elsewhere in the system. CBFWA questions the current population status of the Gold Fork population 

compared to other populations within the Subbasin. Funds are allocated in FY 2003 to relocate bull trout 

and native fish assemblages into renovated stream sections. After removing brook trout from selected 

stream reaches, what is the duration and sampling frequency that will conclude that all brook trout have 

been removed? It is mentioned in the abstract that “No stocking will occur until brook trout abundance is 

reduced to acceptable levels in treatment stream sections”. Is this acceptable level zero? The proposal 

mentions that “lower river reaches are frequently dewatered to satisfy irrigation demands”. Would the 

creation of passage facilities and more efficient water transfer to the irrigators guarantee water will be left 

instream? The RFC proposes that the project should be funded in stages. Objective 1 should be completed 

first with the initiation of Object 2 dependent on the RFC review/approval of the results from Objective 1. 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

20

ProjectID: 32015

Deadwood River and Clear Creek Drainages Roads Analysis and Repair

Sponsor: USFS

Subbasin: Payette

FY03 Request: $105,800

5YR Estimate: $1,088,800

Short Description: Inventory, analyze, identify and repair road problems (road segments contributing 

sediment, culverts blocking fish passage, or culverts at high risk of failure) in the Deadwood River and 

Clear Creek drainages.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. This would provide some definite long-term reductions in sediment delivery, but benefits to fish 

may be difficult to assess. The response indicated that a watershed analysis has been completed.

CBFWA Review Comments:

CBFWA believes that analyzing and correcting problems with roads, culverts and such seem to be 

reasonable approaches to improving conditions for bull trout; however, CBFWA believes that BPA funds 

should not be used for this work which is sponsored by the US Forest Service on Forest Service 

administered land to correct previous Forest Service sponsored actions.

The potential actions to address listed bull trout needs is extensive. CBFWA questions where BPA’s 

responsibility to mitigate for hydrosystem impacts end and the responsibilities of others begin.

ProjectID: 32006

Compare the parr-smolt transformation of non-anadromous and anadromous populations of Oncorhynchus 

mykiss

Sponsor: IDFG

Subbasin: Weiser

FY03 Request: $90,530

5YR Estimate: $286,287

Short Description: Determine if O. mykiss populations that were historically accessible to the ocean but 

are now blocked by dams can produce smolts.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable, in the sense that this is a well-designed study and it would be interesting to know the answer to 

the question posed in the proposal. If passage problems in the Hells Canyon reach can ever be solved, this 

information would be of value. The lab component monitoring physiological attributes, however, seems 

very low priority. The response adequately addressed the questions of whether the sample size of PITtagged fish in tasks a and b is large enough for detection of possible differences and also the specific 

hypotheses that would be tested in tasks a-c.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

21

BRUNEAU RIVER SUBBASIN

ProjectID: 32007

Bull trout habitat restoration/protection program - Bruneau Subbasin

Sponsor: SPT-DVIR

Subbasin: Bruneau

FY03 Request: $218,374

5YR Estimate: $1,658,413

Short Description: Work collaboratively with the USFWS, BLM, NDOW and IDFG to implement habitat 

enhancement/restoration/protection measures in the Bruneau Subbasin to assist in recovery of threatened 

bull trout populations in the Jarbidge and Bruneau River systems.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The response indicated that the proposal is now changed to only support work proposed in the 

Dave Creek component of the original project. The budget is greatly reduced accordingly. Proposal and 

response remain very rough, and preliminary data are very hard to decipher. However, the proposed work 

would protect and enhance critical bull trout along 4 miles of stream for at least several years. The 

response included additional information on M&E that was barely adequate. Monitoring should also 

include estimates of fish abundance.

CBFWA Review Comments:

The objective of this project is to improve stream and riparian habitat conditions for the Jarbidge bull trout 

population. CBFWA agrees with the sponsor’s decision to consider only the Dave Creek project under the 

project request. The objectives are clearly defined and attainable in the stated time frame. The habitat 

analysis was comprehensive and nicely demonstrated the benefit of acquiring a Temporary Conservation 

Easement on critical bull trout spawning habitat to restrict livestock grazing and other streamside 

development and the need for habitat improvements. Although the proposal lacks an M&E plan, the plan is 

being developed with the BLM. The sponsors indicated that the BLM plan would be adopted when 

completed.

ProjectID: 200007900

Assess Resident Fish Stocks Of The Owyhee/Bruneau Basin, D.V.I.R.

Sponsor: Sho-Pai Tribes - DVIR

Subbasin: Bruneau

FY03 Request: $232,000

5YR Estimate: $1,288,000

Short Description: Conduct a systematic resident fish species inventory & stock assessment in the 

Owyhee/Bruneau River Basin, DVIR component. Using established protocol to evaluate the genetic 

composition / introgression of native trout populations on the DVIR.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Do not fund. The ISRP was not convinced that information generated from this project will be of 

significant benefit to resident fish management in the southern Idaho region. The review package 

(proposal, presentation, and response) did not provide the ISRP assurance that the project sponsors are upto-date on current literature, methods, and applications for managing native resident fish populations. The 

proposal as outlined is not a systematic resident fish species inventory and stock assessment in the 

Owyhee/Bruneau River Basin, DVIR component. In the response, the lab protocol description is adequate. 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

22

The proponents are apparently unaware of the need to use a probabilistic sampling procedure for selection 

of sampling sites in this project. The ISRP requested that the proponents use the same sampling procedures 

as currently being implemented in Project 199800200 “Snake River Native Salmonid Assessment.” The 

proponents countered that they were using a similar sampling procedure, but did not give any details for 

review. 

The response did not describe a scientifically sound plan as recommended in the ISRP’s FY00 review and 

in the preliminary review of this proposal. Project performance to date appears to be minimal.

CBFWA Review Comments:

CBFWA recommends that this project should be closely coordinated with Project 199800200 “Snake River 

Native Salmonid Assessment”. CBFWA was unable to determine if much coordination is taking place. 

CBFWA believes that this project is a High Priority and should be completed as soon as possible as results 

of this project are needed for other projects.

ProjectID: 32012

Implement Best Management Practices to improve riparian habitat and upland conditions within the Clover 

Creek watershed.

Sponsor: BRSCD

Subbasin: Bruneau

FY03 Request: $44,500

5YR Estimate: $91,999

Short Description: Enhance riparian and upland habitat and reduce nonpoint source pollution within the 

Clover Creek watershed through the development of a Coordinated Resource Management Plan on private, 

state, and federal land, focusing on private land improvements.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. This generally well-written proposal would continue and expand a commendable and relatively 

low cost cooperative effort to enhance riparian habitat on a portion of Clover Creek that in the long run 

should be capable of sustaining bull trout. Reviewers from ISRP and CBFWA agree that the demonstration 

function for surrounding landowners is significant. Monitoring plans seem adequate.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Proposed work will cover 1/3 of all the private acres on Clover Creek, a location that has been identified as 

a TMDL stream segment. Reviewers suggest that due to the respect that other landowners have for the 

individual that has volunteered his land, this project could serve as a demonstration project that could lead 

other landowners, that are currently reluctant, to become willing to participate in similar activities. 

Although the proposed concept is valid, CBFWA questions the priority status of this project since the 

perception is that the ongoing work will continue regardless of whether BPA funds are secured. CBFWA 

found that most of the monitoring activities are being completed through various processes (e.g., TMDL) as 

well as general fish, wildlife and habitat monitoring by IDFG. CBFWA questions the appropriateness of 

allocating BPA funds to this proposal.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

23

OWYHEE RIVER SUBBASIN

ProjectID: 199505703

Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation - Shoshone-Paiute Tribes

Sponsor: SPT-DVIR

Subbasin: Owyhee

FY03 Request: $1,813,746

5YR Estimate: $7,683,164

Short Description: Acquire, enhance and protect wildlife habitat to mitigate for the construction of 

Anderson Ranch, Deadwood, and Black Canyon hydroelectric facilities.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. This is one of four Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation proposals (199505700 though 03). All 

are more or less identical. Project history and some of the text are identical. Apparently the Southern Idaho 

Wildlife Mitigation (SIWM) project was split into Upper and Middle Snake with the IDFG/IOSC, 

submitting proposals in both places along with the Shoshone-Bannock and Shoshone-Paiute Tribes. The 

ISRP comments on each are mostly identical (except for the plant center in 199505702). 

The proponents have adopted the Albeni Falls M&E Plan for use in southern Idaho in wetland cover types 

and are in the process of expanding that plan to include techniques for monitoring upland habitat and 

wildlife species. They anticipate having the draft Southern Idaho Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 

completed and ready for review by August 1, 2002. The plan should be reviewed by the ISRP before 

implementation. Also, the proponents should review the response provided by the sponsors of Proposal 

#32008. Their draft wildlife monitoring and evaluation plan constitutes a significant step toward 

development of wildlife monitoring protocols that might be recommended to Provinces in the Columbia 

Basin.

ISRP Final Review Comments for 32008: 

The ISRP appreciates the proponents efforts in providing an excellent (but, understandably 

incomplete) draft wildlife inventory and monitoring plan. This draft provides a step toward 

development of a model plan for inventory, monitoring, and evaluation of wildlife that might be 

recommended by CBFWA to state and federal agencies and tribes in the Columbia Basin.

The draft plans for inventory, monitoring and evaluation of wildlife species is an excellent 

response and represents a good step toward methods that might be recommended throughout the 

Columbia Basin. The habitat evaluation section of the plan appears to be minimal, emphasizing 

the need for the region to develop common site selection protocols and data collection methods for 

monitoring of terrestrial habitat. The ISRP encourages the proponents to continue the association 

with the interagency work group to develop plans for monitoring and evaluation of wildlife and 

terrestrial habitat.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

24

ProjectID: 32008

Wildlife Inventory and Habitat Evaluation of Duck Valley Indian Reservation

Sponsor: SPT-DVIR

Subbasin: Owyhee

FY03 Request: $127,461

5YR Estimate: $271,340

Short Description: Conduct wildlife surveys to determine species composition and relative abundance on 

the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. HEP analyses will be conducted to determine habitat suitability index 

for target wildlife species.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable with high priority. The ISRP appreciates the proponents efforts in providing an excellent (but, 

understandably incomplete) draft wildlife inventory and monitoring plan. This draft provides a step toward 

development of a model plan for inventory, monitoring, and evaluation of wildlife that might be 

recommended by CBFWA to state and federal agencies and tribes in the Columbia Basin.

The draft plans for inventory, monitoring and evaluation of wildlife species is an excellent response and 

represents a good step toward methods that might be recommended throughout the Columbia Basin. The 

habitat evaluation section of the plan appears to be minimal, emphasizing the need for the region to develop 

common site selection protocols and data collection methods for monitoring of terrestrial habitat. The 

ISRP encourages the proponents to continue the association with the interagency work group to develop 

plans for monitoring and evaluation of wildlife and terrestrial habitat.

ProjectID: 199701100

Enhance and Protect Habitat and Riparian Areas on the DVIR

Sponsor: SPT - DVIR

Subbasin: Owyhee

FY03 Request: $344,696

5YR Estimate: $1,879,696

Short Description: This project increases critical riparian areas of the Owyhee River and its tributaries as 

well as preserves the numerous natural springs located on the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. Provides a 

clean pure source of water for the fish and wildlife.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. The response provided no new information to suggest the project activities significantly 

protect or enhance fish and wildlife resources. The ISRP noted in its preliminary review the lack of 

necessary detail on quantifiable biologically measurable objectives, methods, and M&E; however, the 

response did not provide any additional substantive detail on these deficiencies. The ISRP remains 

concerned that the project has too limited a focus. Fencing of the springheads only, without also fencing 

adjacent stream riparian areas, will not lead to significant habitat protection and fisheries benefits. 

Earlier ISRP reviews (FY 2000) recommended funding to the DVIR in order to support development of 

refined sampling protocols, project designs, and project descriptions. Detailed plans for M&E should be 

developed and reviewed by the ISRP before funding would be recommended. The ISRP believes that it is 

not appropriate to recommend unconditional funding for projects when one of ISRP’s four primary review 

criteria from the 1996 Power Act amendment directs the ISRP to review and recommend only projects that 

“have provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results.”

CBFWA Review Comments: An M&E Plan needs to be completed for this project.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

25

ProjectID: 198815600

Implement Fishery Stocking Program Consistent With Native Fish Conservation

Sponsor: SPT - DVIR

Subbasin: Owyhee

FY03 Request: $211,688

5YR Estimate: $1,102,688

Short Description: To enhance fisheries on the DVIR we will stock three reservoirs (closed systems) with 

rainbow trout. This project will support a sustainable (put-and-take) harvest by Shoshone-Paiute tribal 

members and non-Indian anglers without impacting native trout.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The response addressed the ISRP concerns in a thoughtful and thorough manner. Details on the 

creel survey and analytical methods are presented. The CBFWA review raised concerns about increasing 

outyear budget increases that may warrant Council attention; however the review information provided to 

the ISRP did not note such increases. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

CBFWA recommends that the sponsor should consider combining this project with Project 199501500 

since they are essentially the same but occur in different lakes. If this project was combined with Project 

199501500 administrative, M&E, and O&M costs could be reduced without reducing the quality and 

deliverables of these projects.

Stocking rates for these waters seem excessive considering that temperature and oxygen profiles indicate 

they are marginal for trout. CBFWA questions how they are determined and adjusted annually? During the 

next 2 years the project costs will increase from $110,000 to $420,000. CBFWA questions why are project 

costs increasing so much over prior years?

If the goal of the project is to produce more and bigger fish for anglers, [CBFWA] suggests the proponent 

should consider using net-pens or rearing ponds to reduce transportation and fish costs. Equipment 

maintenance seems excessive for what is needed to do this project, most of the equipment is owned by subcontractors. See project 199501500 for additional issues that also relate to this project.

ProjectID: 199501500

Lake Billy Shaw Operations and Maintenance and Evaluation (O&M, M&E)

Sponsor: Sho-Pai Tribes DVIR

Subbasin: Owyhee

FY03 Request: $293,000

5YR Estimate: $1,326,000

Short Description: The purpose of this Operation and Maintenance (O&M) project is to enhance and 

develop the Billy Shaw fishery area as a premier fishery in the Northwest U.S. Stocking with native fish (or 

suitable species) shoreline and water quality enhancement/monitoring.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The response addressed the ISRP concerns adequately. It provides assurance that riparian edge 

habitat improvements will be protected through increased education of tribal members and through 

increased monitoring by enforcement personnel. The response noted that maintenance of lake levels was 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

26

being addressed through an MOU with the DVIR Irrigation district; consequently that issue was not yet 

resolved. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

This is a fundable project; however, CBFWA suggests that the following concerns should be addressed. 

Although many tasks (e.g., planting projects, fencing, signage, and public relations) have been in progress 

for multiple years, when will they be finished? Much of the work seems repetitive and once baseline data 

has been established, implementing select tasks (e.g., water quality monitoring) on a yearly basis may have 

limited value. Monitoring could be conducted on a rotating basis with other lakes from Project 198815600. 

CBFWA suggests that data for each lake could be updated every three years and this would provide 

adequate information for assessing changes over time. In addition, monitoring riparian plants should be 

conducted one year after planting and then every five to ten years. Furthermore, CBFWA believes that 

hook and line sampling is redundant if creel surveys are conducted. CBFWA recommends that the 

sponsors consider combining this project with Project 198815600 resulting in an annual budget of 

$250,000. 

ProjectID: 32001

Evaluate the Feasibility Artificial Production Facility DVIR

Sponsor: SPT-DVIR

Subbasin: Owyhee

FY03 Request: $300,000

5YR Estimate: $2,823,000

Short Description: To provide a sustenance fishery for the Tribal of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation 

(DVIR). This will be accomplished through the Feasibility, Construction, and Operation of an Artificial 

Production Facility.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Do Not Fund. The response does not adequately addresses ISRP concerns. The response pins its technical 

assertions on opinions of un-named experts who speculate that raising redbands in culture will be no more 

difficult than cutthroat trout or other salmon. The response also suggests that unspecified advances in 

technology and understanding will make redband culture more feasible in a few years (when DVIR would 

be ready to undertake redband culture) than it currently is. The response fails to provide adequate details 

on planning, risk assessment, and technical details on fish culture that raise questions about the planning 

and technical development process for this project. 

As noted in the ISRP Final 3-Step review of the now-terminated Joint Culture Facility, it is premature to 

consider an artificial production facility for the DVIR until an inventory of stock status and genetic status is 

completed for resident salmonids in DVIR streams and watersheds. These results would provide direction 

about the scale and sophistication of the production facility, as well as insights as to whether the facility is 

needed at all. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

CBFWA recommended that Objective 1 (Tasks a-d) be categorized as “High Priority.” Although not 

included in the proposal, a cost benefit analysis will be performed. CBFWA suggests that Objective 1 be 

extended for a three-year period at a total cost of $450,000. CBFWA questions whether 170,000 lbs. of 

annual production is appropriate for the DVIR? In addition, CBFWA suggested that other options (e.g., net 

pen program, using shaker boxes, continued fish purchases, or developing a rearing facility) may be more 

cost effective. Regardless of how the fish are obtained, CBFWA recommends that monitoring and 

evaluation continue after stocking.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

27

ProjectID: 32014

Feasibility Study of Transporting Salmonids Through a Translucent Fish Passage System

Sponsor: SPT-DVIR

Subbasin: Owyhee

FY03 Request: $102,050

5YR Estimate: $977,050

Short Description: Test the biological response of fingerlings/smolt to transportation in a translucent fish 

passage system

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Do Not Fund

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. ISRP FY00 comments described the idea presented as not scientifically well justified, and 

that position is unchanged in the current review. The proposal does not provide a reasonable plan to test 

this concept. Convincing evidence was not presented that this approach provides a feasible alternative to 

in-river fish passage. 

LOWER MIDDLE SNAKE RIVER SUBBASIN

ProjectID: 199800200

Snake River Native Salmonid Assessment

Sponsor: IDFG and IOSC

Subbasin: Snake Lower Middle

FY03 Request: $346,375

5YR Estimate: $1,877,375

Short Description: Investigate population status and trends, life histories, habitat needs, limiting factors, 

and threats to persistence of native salmonids in the Snake River and tributaries upstream of Hell's Canyon 

Dam in Idaho, and implement recovery/protection plans.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable, with high benefits to fish. This is an excellent proposal and response in virtually all respects. 

The proposal is well written; provides excellent and compelling links to the FWP, including an emphasis on 

assessing and restoring native fish populations in native habitats; and substantial review of results to-date. 

The section on presentation of results for ongoing projects is truly exemplary and could serve as a useful 

model for other ongoing proposals. The track record for a project that is only three years old is impressive 

and has resulted in numerous reports and publications even at this early stage of the project. The response 

addresses the ISRP concerns in a thoughtful and thorough manner. The response details how Conservation 

Management Units may be identified and provides examples of how differing genetic results would lead to 

different management units and actions. 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

28

ProjectID: 32003

White Sturgeon put, grow, and take fishery feasibility assessment, Oxbow/Hells Canyon reservoirs.

Sponsor: NPT

Subbasin: Snake Lower Middle

FY03 Request: $356,800

5YR Estimate: $848,800

Short Description: The goal of this proposed project is to determine the feasibility of a put, grow, and take 

white sturgeon fishery in Oxbow and Hells Canyon reservoirs.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable, high priority. The response addresses most of the ISRP’s concerns. The NPT adequately makes 

a case for BPA support for the project, but failed to address why Idaho Power Company does not bear some 

of the financial responsibility for the proposed mitigation actions. NPT makes the case that development of 

the FCRPS has negatively impacted white sturgeon populations because the hydrosystem inundated critical 

habitats, disrupted juvenile and adult movements, fragmented populations, and impacted food resources. 

Surely construction of the three hydroelectric facilities in the Hells Canyon Complex (Hells Canyon, 

Oxbow, and Brownlee dams) has had similar detrimental effects on white sturgeon populations in the 

Snake River. Therefore, it seems logical that Idaho Power Company should share the cost of the project, in 

spite of the FWP’s support for off-site mitigation efforts. The proposal response fails to recognize and 

adequately discuss these issues. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

Although CBFWA found the proposal to be technically sound, the proposal would benefit from the 

inclusion of additional information. For example, CBFWA suggests that the proposal needs further 

documentation of the sample sizes needed and analytical methods needed to determine survival and diet. 

To estimate survival, CBFWA suggests the release of a larger number of fish. In addition, although the 

number of radio tags to be implanted seems reasonable, CBFWA is unclear as to how the sample size was 

determined. CBFWA suggests that estimation of abundance is key to describing the survival of these fish 

and recommend that investigators describe what precision they are targeting, how many fish they will need 

to capture and how many fish they will need to examine for marks.

CBFWA suggests that diet objectives need to either be modified to allow lethal sampling of the fish using 

an unbiased gear (gill nets not set lines) or eliminated from the proposal. CBFWA suggests that modified 

methods should include a description of sample size required and the methods that will be used to 

characterize the stomach contents (e.g., volume, weight, count, taxonomic order, preservation techniques, 

etc.). CBFWA applauds the proposed coordination with ODFW and IDFG.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

29

ProjectID: 32010

Lookout Mountain Road Decommissioning

Sponsor: BLM

Subbasin: Snake Lower Middle

FY03 Request: $49,150

5YR Estimate: $75,150

Short Description: Decommission a portion of the Sisley Creek and Fox Creek roads totaling 

approximately two and a half miles, resulting in a reduction of sedimentation, enhancement of riparian 

vegetation, and reducing the number of stream and spring crossings in the area.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable, however the proposal and response do not make strong ties to fish benefits in the two subbasins. 

The ISRP agrees with point raised in the CBFWA technical review: “In the Snake River tributaries, the 

limiting factor to tributary habitat is also degraded riparian habitat. Road related activities are contributory 

to on-going negative impacts to resident fish and their habitats. CBFWA suggest that decommissioning of 

roads along riparian areas with reclamation seems like a reasonable approach to improve habitat conditions 

for native resident fishes.” 

CBFWA Review Comments:

The sponsor indicates that the project proposal can help alleviate some of the limiting factors identified in 

the subbasin summaries. Loss of quality habitat and habitat degradation are among the overriding factors 

limiting fish and wildlife populations in the Burnt and Lower Middle Snake subbasins. In the Snake River 

tributaries, the limiting factor to tributary habitat is also degraded riparian habitat. Road related activities 

are contributory to on-going negative impacts to resident fish and their habitats. CBFWA suggest that 

decommissioning of roads along riparian areas with reclamation seems like a reasonable approach to 

improve habitat conditions for native resident fishes; however, CBFWA questions prioritizing BPA funding 

for this type of work sponsored by the US BLM on BLM administered land to correct previous BLM 

sponsored actions. Potential actions to address native fish habitat needs are virtually endless. Where does 

the BPA responsibility to mitigation for hydrosystem impacts end and the responsibilities of others begin? 

UPPER MIDDLE SNAKE RIVER SUBBASIN

ProjectID: 32002

Implement Best Management Practices to improve riparian habitat and upland conditions within the 

Billingsley Creek watershed.

Sponsor: GSCD

Subbasin: Snake Upper Middle

FY03 Request: $114,635

5YR Estimate: $459,175

Short Description: Enhance riparian habitat and reduce nonpoint source pollution within the Billingsley 

Creek watershed through the development and implementation of conservation plans on private lands, 

coordinated with state owned and managed lands within the watershed.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. Billingsley Creek is one of the largest spring creeks in the southern Idaho-Hagerman area and 

because of its natural high productivity offers one of the most promising opportunities for restoration of 

fisheries habitat and benefits, albeit for non-native rainbow and brown trout. Billingsley Creek has suffered 

from long-term habitat degradation from development of agriculture and aquaculture practices, such that 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

30

restoration of the primary stream corridor will be expensive and may be intractable with current approaches 

and smaller-scale restoration projects. Previous small-scale restoration activities have largely failed. 

The response provided good indication of coordination with, and active support from, the Idaho 

Department of Fish & Game. Also encouraging are the signs of nascent activities to reverse a long and 

gradual history of man-caused change to Billingsley Creek. However, until those activities are better 

proven and private landowners are more involved, it remains risky to invest BPA funds here.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Concerns expressed relative to Proposals 32012 and 33007 also apply to this project. In addition, CBFWA 

found that some of the work would be performed in a State Park and question whether it should be a BPA 

responsibility. CBFWA also found that there is a lack of coordination with the Tribes.

ProjectID: 32004

Effects of culverts on fish population persistence: tools for prioritizing fish passage restoration projects in 

the Middle Snake Province

Sponsor: RMRS

Subbasin: Boise

FY03 Request: $23,600

5YR Estimate: $310,340

Short Description: This project seeks to develop quantitative tools to evaluate risks that stream culverts 

pose to fish populations. Products from the research would be used in prioritizing fish passage restoration 

projects to provide maximum benefits to fish populations.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, Low Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable at low priority. The response was helpful in differentiating between the proposed approach and 

that of the WDFW culvert prioritization protocol. Three concerns remain. One is the possible lack of 

transferability to streams with anadromous fish. Two, there is some cost share ($61.5K from RMRS) but 

most of the study presumably will deal with Forest Service lands; however, no other funding is contributed 

by USFS and the proposal makes little reference to USFS and its needs. Third, outyear funding for FY04 

and 05 is dominated by $122K/yr for construction and implementation, but no activities are detailed.

 

CBFWA Review Comments:

Reviewers question whether it is a BPA responsibility to pay for the removal of culverts. CBFWA found 

that the proposed work is potentially interesting; however, CBFWA questions whether it is needed. 

CBFWA found that the methods are more of a discussion and that specific methods for fieldwork and 

modeling are lacking. In addition, CBFWA is uncertain if this approach would provide additional 

information beyond the WDFW protocol manual (i.e., Fish Passage Barrier and Surface Water Diversion 

Screening Assessment and Prioritization Manual).
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

31

MALHEUR RIVER SUBBASIN

ProjectID: 200002700

Malheur River Wildlife Mitigation Project

Sponsor: BPT

Subbasin: Malheur

FY03 Request: $694,880 (Adjusted $426,880)

5YR Estimate: $2,484,180 (Adjusted $2,216,180)

Short Description: Restore and enhance critical fish and wildlife habitat, maintain BLM allotments, 

enhance historic home range and wintering habitat for resident and migratory species, control weeds, and 

improve water quality along the Malheur River.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part as Amended (Qualified - see comments)

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Partially Disagree - Fundable in Part as Amended (Qualified)

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part and as amended. Operation and management plans appear to be adequate, while 

monitoring and evaluation plans were not. Funding should support only the O&M component at this time. 

Plans for management of the property appear to be sound, but unfortunately, the long term monitoring and 

evaluation plans are not adequate and should not be implemented. Detailed plans for M&E should be 

developed and reviewed by the ISRP before funding is recommended. The ISRP believes that it is not 

appropriate to recommend unconditional funding for projects when one of the ISRP’s four primary review 

criteria (from the 1996 Power Act Amendment) is that we review and recommend only projects that “have 

provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results.”

Communication has been received from the project sponsor on 4/10/02 that they wish to amend the 

proposed elk study from the 2003-2005 budget for project #200002700. Specifically, the communication 

that we reviewed indicated that they propose to drop the elk study and substitute their standard M&E 

efforts. The ISRP assumes that this means that they are now proposing to drop both the elk and deer radio 

tagging study and substitute their standard M&E efforts for both elk and deer. The ISRP would, at this 

time, continue to recommend against a radio tagging study of deer distribution and behavior.

Plans for management of the property appear to be sound, but unfortunately, the long term monitoring and 

evaluation plans are not adequate and should not be implemented. The ISRP suggests that the proponents 

work with the interagency work group supporting Proposal #1992-06100 “Albeni Falls Wildlife 

Mitigation,” to develop plans for terrestrial monitoring and evaluation. These plans were reviewed by the 

ISRP in the addendum to report ISRP 2001-4 “Review of Draft Albeni Falls M&E Plan.” The proponents 

should review the response provided by the sponsors of the four wildlife mitigation project proposals in 

southern Idaho (199505700-03). Also, the draft wildlife monitoring and evaluation plan provided by the 

sponsors of Proposal #32008 is a significant step toward development of wildlife monitoring protocols that 

might be recommended to Provinces in the Columbia Basin.

Long-term monitoring for habitat must have some probabilistic procedures for site selection with 

economical data collection procedures. Intensive procedures for subsampling a few subjectively selected 

macroplots or clumps of willows, i.e., “index” sites, do not provide the coverage necessary to evaluate 

long-term trends and changes in habitat over large areas. The ISRP encourages the proponents to join the 

interagency work group to develop plans for monitoring and evaluation of wildlife and terrestrial habitat 

and to review the Draft Albeni Falls M&E Plan. While we recognize this is a wildlife project, habitat 

improvement projects on the tributaries should also address remnant redband trout population status in 

these locations. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

The elk study component has been removed (M&E objectives 1,2, and 3 as well as the elk objectives of 

objectives 4 and 5) thus the budget has been reduced to $426,880
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

32

ProjectID: 200000900

Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation Project/ O&M

Sponsor: BPT

Subbasin: Malheur

FY03 Request: $146,842

5YR Estimate: $555,974

Short Description: Restore and enhance critical fish and wildlife habitat, enhance historic home range and 

seasonal habitat for resident and migratory species, control weeds, and improve water quality for 

headwaters of the Malheur River Basin.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Partially Disagree - Fundable in Part 

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part. Operation and management plans appear to be adequate, while monitoring and evaluation 

plans were not. Funding should support only the O&M component at this time. Detailed plans for M&E 

should be developed and reviewed by the ISRP before funding is recommended. The ISRP believes that it 

is not appropriate to recommend unconditional funding for projects when one of the ISRP’s four primary 

review guidelines (from the 1996 Power Act Amendment) is that we review and recommend only projects 

that “have provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results.”

The ISRP agrees with Goal 3 (maintain historic wet/dry meadow distribution), but notes that the goal may 

conflict with instream water needs for fish benefits. This issue deserves further consideration as final 

details of the implementation plan are developed. 

Plans for management of the property appear to be sound, but unfortunately, the long term monitoring and 

evaluation plans are not adequate and should not be implemented. The ISRP suggests that the proponents 

work with the interagency work group supporting Proposal #1992-06100 “Albeni Falls Wildlife 

Mitigation,” to develop plans for terrestrial monitoring and evaluation. These plans were reviewed by the 

ISRP in the addendum to report ISRP 2001-4 “Review of Draft Albeni Falls M&E Plan.” The proponents 

should review the response provided by the sponsors of the four wildlife mitigation project proposals in 

southern Idaho (199505700-03). Also, the draft wildlife monitoring and evaluation plan provided by the 

sponsors of Proposal #32008 is a significant step toward development of wildlife monitoring protocols that 

might be recommended to Provinces in the Columbia Basin.

Long-term monitoring for habitat must have probabilistic procedures for site selection with economical 

data collection procedures. Intensive procedures for subsampling a few subjectively selected macroplots or 

clumps of willows, i.e., “index” sites, do not provide the coverage necessary to evaluate long-term trends 

and changes in habitat over large areas. The ISRP encourages the proponents to join the interagency work 

group to develop plans for monitoring and evaluation of wildlife and terrestrial habitat and to review the 

Draft Albeni Falls M&E Plan.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Proposed work will provide for habitat improvements for bull trout. Reviewers suggest that the budget 

tasks need to be related strictly to O&M and that construction and implementation activities need to be 

reevaluated and reclassified.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

33

ProjectID: 32019

Logan Valley Fish and Wildlife Project- Stanbro Ranch Acquisition

Sponsor: BPT

Subbasin: Malheur

FY03 Request: $1,355,286

5YR Estimate: $1,965,286

Short Description: Acquisition will expand, restore, and enhance habitat for the purpose of fish and 

wildlife management and will replace critically important habitat for the persistence of T&E, sensitive, and 

culturally important fish, wildlife, and plant species.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Partially Disagree - Fundable in Part 

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part. This project is fundable as an acquisition; however, the long-term monitoring and 

evaluation plans are not adequate and should not be implemented at this time. Detailed plans for M&E 

should be developed and reviewed by the ISRP before funding is recommended. The The ISRP believes 

that it is not appropriate to recommend unconditional funding for projects when one of the ISRP’s four 

primary review guidelines (from the 1996 Power Act Amendment) is that we review and recommend only 

projects that “have provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results.” This purchase is adjacent to other 

tribal land and US Forest Service land; it is the last private land in the Strawberry Mountain Wilderness 

Management Area. This area will likely recover with passive restoration.

The ISRP suggests that the proponents work with the interagency work group supporting Proposal #1992-

06100 “Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation,” to develop plans for terrestrial monitoring and evaluation. These 

plans were reviewed by the ISRP in the addendum to report ISRP 2001-4 “Review of Draft Albeni Falls 

M&E Plan.” The proponents should review the response provided by the sponsors of the four wildlife 

mitigation project proposals in southern Idaho (199505700-03). Also, the draft wildlife monitoring and 

evaluation plan provided by the sponsors of Proposal #32008 is a significant step toward development of 

wildlife monitoring protocols that might be recommended to Provinces in the Columbia Basin.

Long-term monitoring for habitat must have probabilistic procedures for site selection with economical 

data collection procedures. Intensive procedures for subsampling a few subjectively selected macroplots or 

clumps of willows, i.e., “index” sites, do not provide the coverage necessary to evaluate long-term trends 

and changes in habitat over large areas. The ISRP encourages the proponents to join the interagency work 

group to develop plans for monitoring and evaluation of wildlife and terrestrial habitat and to review the 

Draft Albeni Falls M&E Plan.

CBFWA Review Comments:

The BPT has provided the following information regarding the crediting questions that CBFWA had: MOA 

between the Burns Paiute Tribe and BPA. Page (1) C. The Tribe has developed the Logan Valley and 

Malheur River Projects, collectively called the Malheur River Basin Project (Project), to assist BPA in 

fulfilling its wildlife mitigation obligation. A legal description of the Project is in Attachment A of this 

Agreement. In addition, at some future date the parties may wish to expand the scope of the Project to 

include other property. If the other property is added to the Project, its acquisition and management shall be 

pursuant to this Agreement (the "in addition" wording pertains to the Williams and Stanbro proposals as far 

as the Tribe is concerned whether or not BPA as one of the parties to the MOA agrees is another issue, but 

one would think that a funding of either project is in fact BPA's stamp of approval of where the credits 

[past, future] will be applied since there is a mechanism for that built into the MOA).

BPA CREDIT page (7)(c) BPA shall receive full credit for all HUs, including those from both the 

acquisition of real property interests and from habitat improvement and management activities that are a 

direct result of BPA funding. BPA may credit these HUs toward its mitigation duty for wildlife habitat 

losses at the Lower Monumental, Lower Granite, Little Goose, and Ice Harbor Projects or any other Federal 

Columbia River Power System project (i) agreed to by BPA, the Tribe and the Council, or (ii) adopted by 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

34

BPA consistent with the Northwest Power Act and applicable law (that covers where our HU's for the 

current project will be credited to and the areas where future credits will be assigned. The MOA is a 

binding legal document agreed to in whole by both parties The Burns Paiute Tribe and Bonneville Power, 

no outside input was sought or needed).

ProjectID: 32018

Williams Ranch Fish and Wildlife Acquisition Project

Sponsor: BPT

Subbasin: Malheur

FY03 Request: $2,259,392

5YR Estimate: $3,194,992

Short Description: Acquisition will expand, restore and enhance habitat for the purpose of fish and 

wildlife management and will replace critically important habitat for the persistence of T&E, sensitive and 

culturally important fish, wildlife and plant species.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Partially Disagree - Fundable in Part 

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part. This project is fundable as an acquisition; however, the long-term monitoring and 

evaluation plans are not adequate and should not be implemented at this time. Detailed plans for M&E 

should be developed and reviewed by the ISRP before funding is recommended. The The ISRP believes 

that it is not appropriate to recommend unconditional funding for projects when one of the ISRP’s four 

primary review guidelines (from the 1996 Power Act Amendment) is that we review and recommend only 

projects that “have provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results.” This is valuable wildlife habitat 

that borders the Warm Springs Reservoir and 16.6 miles of South Fork Malheur River.

If this property is purchased, the long term monitoring and evaluation plans are not adequate and should not 

be implemented. The ISRP suggests that the proponents work with the interagency work group supporting 

Proposal #1992-06100 “Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation,” to develop plans for terrestrial monitoring and 

evaluation. These plans were reviewed by the ISRP in the addendum to report ISRP 2001-4 “Review of 

Draft Albeni Falls M&E Plan.” The proponents should review the response provided by the sponsors of the 

four wildlife mitigation project proposals in southern Idaho (199505700-03). Also, the draft wildlife 

monitoring and evaluation plan provided by the sponsors of Proposal #32008 is a significant step toward 

development of wildlife monitoring protocols that might be recommended to Provinces in the Columbia 

Basin.

Long-term monitoring for habitat must have probabilistic procedures for site selection with economical 

data collection procedures. Intensive procedures for subsampling a few subjectively selected macroplots or 

clumps of willows, i.e., “index” sites, do not provide the coverage necessary to evaluate long-term trends 

and changes in habitat over large areas. The ISRP encourages the proponents to join the interagency work 

group to develop plans for monitoring and evaluation of wildlife and terrestrial habitat and to review the 

Draft Albeni Falls M&E Plan.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Proposed work is located in "core" bull trout habitat as identified by the USFWS. Sponsors will provide 

information regarding what facility mitigation would be credited to during the CBFWA review. The BPT 

has provided the following information regarding the crediting questions that CBFWA had: MOA between 

the Burns Paiute Tribe and BPA. Page (1) C. The Tribe has developed the Logan Valley and Malheur River 

Projects, collectively called the Malheur River Basin Project (Project), to assist BPA in fulfilling its 

wildlife mitigation obligation. A legal description of the Project is in Attachment A of this Agreement. In 

addition, at some future date the parties may wish to expand the scope of the Project to include other 

property. If the other property is added to the Project, its acquisition and management shall be pursuant to 

this Agreement (the "in addition" wording pertains to the Williams and Stanbro proposals as far as the 

Tribe is concerned whether or not BPA as one of the parties to the MOA agrees is another issue, but one 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

35

would think that a funding of either project is in fact BPA's stamp of approval of where the credits [past, 

future] will be applied since there is a mechanism for that built into the MOA).

BPA CREDIT page (7)(c) BPA shall receive full credit for all HUs, including those from both the 

acquisition of real property interests and from habitat improvement and management activities that are a 

direct result of BPA funding. BPA may credit these HUs toward its mitigation duty for wildlife habitat 

losses at the Lower Monumental, Lower Granite, Little Goose, and Ice Harbor Projects or any other Federal

Columbia River Power System project (i) agreed to by BPA, the Tribe and the Council, or (ii) adopted by 

BPA consistent with the Northwest Power Act and applicable law (that covers where our HU's for the 

current project will be credited to and the areas where future credits will be assigned. The MOA is a 

binding legal document agreed to in whole by both parties The Burns Paiute Tribe and Bonneville Power, 

no outside input was sought or needed).

ProjectID: 199701900

Evaluate The Life History Of Native Salmonids In The Malheur Basin

Sponsor: BPT

Subbasin: Malheur

FY03 Request: $324,401

5YR Estimate: $991,485

Short Description: Evaluate and determine the life history, distribution, and critical habitats pertinent to 

populations of bull trout and other salmonids within the Malheur subbasin.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Partially Disagree - Fundable in Part 

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part to complete work in progress. BPT staff have done some good work with this project, but 

it is time to complete tasks in progress and move on to projects elsewhere in the subbasin. Recently 

gathered data seem to make a strong case for the need for a conservation pool in Beulah Reservoir based on 

its use by adult bull trout and the process for implementation appears underway with BOR negotiations. In 

the proposal for new work, staff propose to continue for another cycle by tracking sub-adults. The ISRP 

believes there is minimal justification for this, and the response, although clear, was not convincing. 

ProjectID: 32016

Assess the feasibility of the Upper Malheur Watershed to support the reintroduction of anadromous 

populations above the Beulah & Warmsprings Reservoir

Sponsor: BPT

Subbasin: Malheur

FY03 Request: $168,896 (Adjusted $49,000)

5YR Estimate: $298,896 (Adjusted $179,000)

Short Description: The project is broke into two phases, the first being a feasibility study on the 

reintroduction of anadromous fish in the Malheur Subbasin. The second phase is the development of a 

reintroduction plan for the Subbasin.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable as a planning and prioritization exercise. The CBFWA technical review notes that the proposed 

budget has been reduced to $49,000 to allow for a literature search and subsequent report (on habitat status 

and reintroduction feasibility). The response by project proponents adequately addressed the issues raised 

by the ISRP regarding the subcontractor and proposed methods. Although technically sound, questions 

remain regarding the extent to which this is appropriate for BPA funding. 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

36

CBFWA Review Comments:

The proposed budget has been reduced to $49,000 to allow for a literature search and subsequent report. 

Following the completion of this effort, the product should be sent back the CBFWA for review prior to the 

initiation of the next phase. 

ProjectID: 32017

Suppress Brook Trout Populations in the Upper Malheur Subbasin.

Sponsor: BPT

Subbasin: Malheur

FY03 Request: $221,473

5YR Estimate: $1,068,091

Short Description: Determine the magnitude or level of hybridization of brook and bull trout within the 

Upper Malheur Basin, document physical features of F1/F2 hybrids, and determine effective way to 

suppress or eliminate brook trout from the Malheur basin.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Do Not Fund

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Do not fund. Reviewers viewed this as the worst possible ecological situation for effective brook trout 

suppression, with a headwater lake stronghold of brook trout. The likelihood of project efforts being 

successful in suppressing brook trout were felt to be minimal. The approach of using pheromone-emitting 

"bait" brook trout is a promising, but largely unproven concept, and this is not an appropriate setting for its 

testing.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Reviewers suggest the removal of Objective 1 ($25,000) since it is included in 199701900. In addition, the 

reviewers question whether complete removal is possible and expressed concern over the persistence of 

hybridization despite suppression activities. CBFWA recommends that this proposal, in its current state, 

should not be funded. Although the overall goal of the project is important to bull trout recovery in the 

Upper Malheur Subbasin, CBFWA believes the likelihood that the proposed suppression projects will be 

successful is minimal using the proposed strategies and under the existing ecological situation. The project 

proposal is well written and the project objectives are biologically appropriate. However, the proposal does 

not demonstrate that the project benefits (i.e., brook trout suppression) are likely to persist over the long 

term because they will be compromised by a source population of brook trout occupying the headwater 

lake and river system. Further, the effectiveness of the proposed suppression techniques (i.e., pheromonebased trapping, angling, and gillnetting) is questionable, especially given that the entire headwater lake 

(High Lake) and river (Lake Creek) system is inhabited exclusively by brook trout. Chemical eradication 

of the headwater lake source population of brook trout should be considered to ensure successful long-term 

brook trout suppression efforts. 

Objective 1 will assess the basinwide level of hybridization and sympatric populations of brook and bull 

trout. This objective is important to document the magnitude and location of hybridization between native 

bull trout and non-native brook trout for future suppression and eradication programs. CBFWA suggests 

that the project proponents consider submitting this request as a separate project or include this objective in 

a modified proposal. Objective 1 is important; however, during the project review it was noted this 

objective is covered under another project.

Objective 2 concerns implementing brook trout suppression efforts in areas where bull trout spawning 

activity occurs. Pheromone-based trapping may be a promising technique to attract and remove spawning 

brook trout; however, CBFWA believes the study area does not appear to be an ideal setting to conduct a 

quantitative study to test this methodology. Research currently underway by Mike Young (USFS) and 

David Schmetterling (MFWP) will assess the effectiveness of pheromone “bait” trapping in tributaries of 

the Blackfoot River drainage, Montana, during 2002. Results of their study may provide insight in the 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

37

effectiveness of the technique. Further, the success of angling and weir trapping to suppress brook trout 

will be minimal in this setting. 

The project proponents are strongly urged to use chemical eradication techniques (antimycin and rotenone) 

to eradicate the existing population of brook trout in High Lake and Lake Creek. Case histories of related 

projects have shown that gillnetting and spot electrofishing have a low probability of success in achieving 

the desired goal of the project. Further, the proposed suppression efforts throughout the system will have 

minimal success if this source population is not removed.

CBFWA believes that monitoring brook trout and bull trout population trends (Objective 4) and 

coordinating with state, federal, tribal and private landowners (Objective 5) are important elements of this 

project and should be considered for funding if the scope of the proposal is modified as suggested. A 

change in techniques and methods could make this project a high priority. CBFWA proposes that the 

sponsors eradicate the source population (i.e., headwater (lake) and stream). Following verification of 

effectiveness through M&E efforts, CBFWA proposes the sponsors could consider restocking the 

lake/stream with native redband trout pending approval of other cooperating fish and wildlife managers. 

The proposed Phase 2 of this project should not be initiated without CBFWA review/approval. 

ProjectID: 32005

Burns Paiute Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Coordinator

Sponsor: BPFW

Subbasin: Malheur

FY03 Request: $53,978

5YR Estimate: $220,956

Short Description: Develop wildlife mitigation strategies consisting of selection, scientific analysis, 

implementation (acquisition, enhancement, etc.), O&M, and evaluation of wildlife mitigation projects for 

the Burns Paiute Tribe.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Applicable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Not Applicable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not Applicable. The employment of a coordinator-planner for the Burns Paiute Tribe is probably justified; 

however, the proposal is not amenable to scientific review. 

POWDER RIVER SUBBASIN

ProjectID: 199405400

Tools for Managing Bull Trout Populations Influenced by Nonnative Brook Trout Invasions

Sponsor: ODFW

Subbasin: Powder

FY03 Request: $555,981 (Adjusted $329,581)

5YR Estimate: $1,697,881 (Adjusted $729,488)

Short Description: Develop models of ecological and genetic effects of nonnative brook trout on bull 

trout; monitor population abundance and habitat

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable at a low priority. The EMAP component (objective 4) has been deleted. The ISRP views this 

proposal as producing relatively low value for high cost. The response did not adequately address the 

ISRP’s concerns from the preliminary review. Details on methods and the management application were 

not adequately expanded. This proposal is virtually identical with #28007 that was proposed by the same 

PIs in the recent Salmon River subbasin (Mountain Snake) review except that #199405400 pertains only to 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

38

bull trout - brook trout interactions and not rainbow - cutthroat interactions. That fact seems to weaken the 

proponent’s case that this is a logical continuation of the work plan for #199405400.

ISRP final review comments on #28007 seem to be relevant here:

Fundable (low priority). This is a proposal to develop a series of models to examine causes of nonnative trout invasions in the Salmon and Clearwater subbasins and to look at genetic impacts 

(brook trout hybridization) and ecological impacts. It is a well-written proposal by highly qualified 

scientists that nicely characterizes the current situation regarding the issue of nonnative trout. 

Reviewers agree with proposal authors that the issue is important and urgent. However, neither 

the proposal (and response) nor the presentation convinced reviewers that at the end of the 

proposed project in 2006, fishery and land managers would be better able to make decisions 

regarding steps best taken to rectify the situation. 

The author is encouraged to develop this approach more fully and submit future proposals. To 

justify FWP funding the approach should make stronger ties between possible results and 

management options... 

The ISRP does not disagree that it is important to better understand the basic causes and patterns 

of nonnative trout invasions, in order to, in part, predict the course of those invasions yet to occur. 

However, the panel (and resource managers they queried) feels that is more appropriate that the 

limited Bonneville resources available be used to effect a reversal of the existing legacy of 

invasions, and that our current understanding, while admittedly incomplete, is adequate to begin 

those efforts. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

CBFWA recommends that Objectives 1-3 should be funded; however, concerns were expressed about 

changes of scope of ongoing projects and CBFWA suggests that the project sponsors be held to the flowing 

allocation schedule: 2003 - $329,581, 2003 - $293,482, 2005 - $106,425, and 2006 - $0. 

Upper Snake Province

HEADWATERS SUBBASIN

ProjectID: 199505700

Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation - Upper Snake

Sponsor: IDFG & IOSC

Subbasin: Headwaters

FY03 Request: $4,068,153

5YR Estimate: $22,877,616

Short Description: Protect, enhance, restore and maintain wildlife habitats to mitigate for construction 

losses at Palisades and Minidoka dams.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. This is one of four Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation proposals (199505700 though 03). All 

are more or less identical. Project history and some of the text are identical. Apparently the Southern Idaho 

Wildlife Mitigation (SIWM) project was split into Upper and Middle Snake with the IDFG/IOSC, 

submitting proposals in both places along with the Shoshone-Bannock and Shoshone-Paiute Tribes. The 

ISRP comments on each are mostly identical (except for the plant center in 199505702). 

The proponents have adopted the Albeni Falls M&E Plan for use in southern Idaho in wetland cover types 

and are in the process of expanding that plan to include techniques for monitoring upland habitat and 

wildlife species. They anticipate having the draft Southern Idaho Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 

completed and ready for review by August 1, 2002. The plan should be reviewed by the ISRP before 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

39

implementation. Also, the proponents should review the response provided by the sponsors of Proposal 

#32008. Their draft wildlife monitoring and evaluation plan constitutes a significant step toward 

development of wildlife monitoring protocols that might be recommended to Provinces in the Columbia 

Basin.

ISRP Final Review Comments for 32008: 

The ISRP appreciates the proponents efforts in providing an excellent (but, understandably 

incomplete) draft wildlife inventory and monitoring plan. This draft provides a step toward 

development of a model plan for inventory, monitoring, and evaluation of wildlife that might be 

recommended by CBFWA to state and federal agencies and tribes in the Columbia Basin.

The draft plans for inventory, monitoring and evaluation of wildlife species is an excellent 

response and represents a good step toward methods that might be recommended throughout the 

Columbia Basin. The habitat evaluation section of the plan appears to be minimal, emphasizing 

the need for the region to develop common site selection protocols and data collection methods for 

monitoring of terrestrial habitat. The ISRP encourages the proponents to continue the association 

with the interagency work group to develop plans for monitoring and evaluation of wildlife and 

terrestrial habitat.

CBFWA Review Comments:

The proposed work provides for ongoing O&M activities. Project sponsors indicate credits will be applied 

to Palisades and Minidoka.

ProjectID: 33006

Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship on Mitigation Lands and Sensitive Habitats in the Upper 

Snake Headwaters

Sponsor: TREC

Subbasin: Headwaters

Proposal withdrawn.

ProjectID: 33009

Improve Yellowstone cutthroat trout recruitment and survival in the South Fork of the Snake River

Sponsor: IDFG

Subbasin: Headwaters

FY03 Request: $264,700

5YR Estimate: $2,254,700

Short Description: Increase juvenile cutthroat trout recruitment and survival in the South Fork of the 

Snake River by minimizing entrainment losses and side channel stranding mortality, and by restoring 

tributary habitat.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - High Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The response addresses the ISRP concerns in a thoughtful and thorough manner. The project 

presentation was also excellent. In the presentation and response, the project sponsor’s demonstrated 

considerable background knowledge of the issues about which the ISRP requested additional information, 

including prioritization, protocols, and questions about the Great Feeder. Also, an apparent contradiction 

between statements about flow levels and overwinter mortality in Lower and Upper River sections was 

clarified and resolved. 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

40

UPPER CLOSED BASIN SUBBASIN

ProjectID: 33005

Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship in Sensitive Habitats in the Upper Closed Basin

Sponsor: TREC

Subbasin: Upper Closed Basin

Proposal withdrawn.

ProjectID: 33007

Implement Best Management Practices to improve riparian habitat and upland conditions in the Medicine 

Lodge watershed.

Sponsor: Clark SCD

Subbasin: Upper Closed Basin

FY03 Request: $98,902

5YR Estimate: $564,510

Short Description: Enhance riparian habitat and reduce nonpoint source pollution within the Medicine 

Lodge watershed through the development and implementation of conservation plans on private lands, 

coordinated with local, state, and federal land managers.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, Low Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable, but at a low priority. The CBFWA technical review comments are appropriate and insightful. It 

is clear that there is little innovative, especially timely, or particularly focused work proposed here. The 

response still shows little indication of involvement from fish biologists.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Although the proposal calls for instream work (e.g., rock weirs, in stream barbs, etc.), CBFWA questions 

whether passive restoration techniques have been considered. CBFWA found that local fish and wildlife 

managers view the proposed work as a good idea but question the priority of the project. The proposed 

work would implement BMPs, which should already be in place in the subbasin. In addition, CBFWA 

identified a lack of coordination with the Tribes.

UPPER SNAKE RIVER SUBBASIN

ProjectID: 199201000

Habitat Restoration/Enhancement Fort Hall Reservation

Sponsor: SBT

Subbasin: Upper Snake

FY03 Request: $175,000

5YR Estimate: $923,500

Short Description: Provide conditions to maintain a self-perpetuating Tribal subsistence and trophy trout 

fishery through implementation of habitat restoration, enhancement and protection activities on the Fort 

Hall Indian Reservation.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified - see comments)

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable (Qualified)

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The response provided valuable information and clarified several items from the proposal. In 

spite of the long history of the project (start date of 1992), livestock management issues still appear to be 

unresolved (as discussed in the response) and may be limiting the benefits of the past habitat improvement 

actions. These issues need to be resolved before further funding of the project can be justified from a 

technical perspective. 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

41

CBFWA Review Comments:

CBFWA questions the rationale used to select and prioritize the various enhancement projects. It was clear 

that monitoring and evaluation of projects is occurring; however, it was not clear how disturbances 

elsewhere in the subbasin are affecting the completed habitat projects and what strategies are being used to 

protect past and future investments. 

ProjectID: 199505702

Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation Program

Sponsor: SBT

Subbasin: Upper Snake

FY03 Request: $3,592,141

5YR Estimate: $20,675,052

Short Description: Protect, enhance, restore and maintain wildlife habitats to mitigate for construction 

losses at Palisades and Minidoka dams.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Partially Disagree - Fundable in Part 

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part. The ISRP recognizes the need for a reliable source of seeds and stock for native plants. 

However, funding of a plant materials center at the Deer Parks Wildlife Mitigation Unit should be 

postponed until a detailed operations and management plan (i.e., a business plan) is available for review. 

Additionally, the ISRP recommends that the Council carefully evaluate funding of the Deer Parks plant 

materials center to determine if it satisfies requirements for off site mitigation in the Fish and Wildlife 

Program. 

The proponents have adopted the Albeni Falls M&E Plan for use in southern Idaho in wetland cover types 

and are in the process of expanding that plan to include techniques for monitoring upland habitat and 

wildlife species. They anticipate having the draft Southern Idaho Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 

completed and ready for review by August 1, 2002. The plan should be reviewed by the ISRP before 

implementation. Also, the proponents should review the response provided by the sponsors of Proposal 

#32008. Their draft wildlife monitoring and evaluation plan constitutes a significant step toward 

development of wildlife monitoring protocols that might be recommended to Provinces in the Columbia 

Basin.

ISRP Final Review Comments for 32008: 

The ISRP appreciates the proponents efforts in providing an excellent (but, understandably 

incomplete) draft wildlife inventory and monitoring plan. This draft provides a step toward 

development of a model plan for inventory, monitoring, and evaluation of wildlife that might be 

recommended by CBFWA to state and federal agencies and tribes in the Columbia Basin.

The draft plans for inventory, monitoring and evaluation of wildlife species is an excellent 

response and represents a good step toward methods that might be recommended throughout the

Columbia Basin. The habitat evaluation section of the plan appears to be minimal, emphasizing 

the need for the region to develop common site selection protocols and data collection methods for 

monitoring of terrestrial habitat. The ISRP encourages the proponents to continue the association 

with the interagency work group to develop plans for monitoring and evaluation of wildlife and 

terrestrial habitat.

CBFWA Review Comments:

The proposed work provides for ongoing O&M activities. Project sponsors indicate credits will be applied 

to Palisades and Minidoka.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

42

ProjectID: 33001

Assessment of genetic population structure and risk of introgression and hybridization to native trout in the 

Mid and Upper Snake River Provinces

Sponsor: IDFG and IOSC

Subbasin: Upper Snake

FY03 Request: $228,458

5YR Estimate: $713,154

Short Description: Detect and quantify levels of hatchery produced O. mykiss introgression within, and 

assess genetic diversity and genetic population structure of native Yellowstone cutthroat trout and redband 

trout in the Middle and Upper Snake River Provinces.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable; likely to have strong benefits to the fisheries program. The response addresses the ISRP 

concerns in a thoughtful and thorough manner. It details how Conservation Management Units may be 

identified and provides examples of how differing genetic results would lead to different management units 

and actions. It also provides examples of sample collections outside of Idaho, but only inferentially 

suggests that these samples constitute adequate sampling of native trout populations in the Middle and 

Upper Snake provinces. 

The technical review comments from CBFWA were thoughtful and should be considered by the project 

sponsors before project implementation. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project would utilize samples that have already been collected. Information from this study is 

essential for the development of the Yellowstone cutthroat plan. Although CBFWA believes the proposed 

work should be categorized as a “High Priority” since management efforts would benefit from the 

activities, CBFWA identified four issues that need to be addressed. First, although the proposed genetic 

techniques are technically valid, CBFWA suggests that using existing fin clip samples to determine 

population structure can be problematic due to collection design (e.g., samples need to be collected over a 

large area of stream and samples need to represent various age classes). Typically no more than 10 fish per 

100m section of stream should be collected. In addition, lengths and sometime weights need to be 

collected as well. This is to ensure that adults make up the majority of samples. If only juveniles are 

collected from a short section of stream, in essence siblings could make up the entire sample, thus 

providing inaccurate population structure makeup. Samples and sample locations need to be georeferenced. In addition, samples need to be archived for future use. This and other resident fish genetic 

projects need to be coordinated among all labs to determine which loci are used and to ensure that methods 

and techniques are the same. 

 

Second, regarding management applications of resultant genetic data, notably lacking from the discussion 

is the need or potential to replace the stocking of nonnative rainbow trout with progeny from broodstock 

developed from pure populations of Yellowstone cutthroat trout or redband. In previous reviews the ISRP 

has indicated that, if a management decision is made to continue stocking fish to augment fisheries in 

waters inhabitable to native fishes, the brood stock source for such stocking should be from the native 

fishes. The proposal suggests that Idaho’s stocking database may be useful in predicting hybridization and 

introgression levels and therefore a good predictor of genetic risks to resident trout populations from 

historical rainbow trout stocking. Using an historical stocking model as a guide to suggest where it may be 

“safe” to stock non-native rainbow trout, especially where unimpeded access (connectivity) is involved, 

appears to be playing with fire. Changing environmental conditions could render historic 

stocking/introgression risk assumptions/relationships invalid. A more comprehensive policy of using 

progeny from native broodstock for stocking purposes would be less risky.

Third, per the ISRP’s comments, the sponsors have modified, through the “fix-it loop”, their proposal to 

include the analysis of redband trout from Oregon waters. Although the proposal sponsors include a 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

43

personal communication reference (BPT personnel) with respect to the allocation of samples from Malheur 

Subbasin waters, CBFWA has identified an oversight. The Statement of Work that the BPT has submitted 

to BPA for Project 199701900 provides for the collection of samples (i.e., fin samples) and genetic analysis 

of salmonid species, which includes redband trout, from the locations identified in the revised Proposal 

33001. CBFWA suggests that the BPT should make available, if requested by the sponsors of Proposal 

33001, the results from the genetic analyses (techniques used in Project 199701900 are the same as those 

proposed in 33001) that have and will be obtained through Project 199701900. CBFWA believes the 

allocation of funds to Proposal 33001 for the analysis of samples from Oregon would result in unnecessary 

duplicative efforts in a province where only $500,000 is available for new work. CBFWA suggests that 

funding the Oregon portion of the Proposal 33001 would create a duplication of effort and entail an 

inefficient use of resources. In addition, CBFWA expressed concern relative to the lack of coordination 

with the ODFW’s staff, specifically their geneticist. Given the CBFWA concerns about duplicative efforts, 

the geneticists from ODFW, IDFG and MDFWG should meet to coordinate their efforts.

ProjectID: 33004

Survival of adfluvial Yellowstone cutthroat trout in the upper Blackfoot River drainage

Sponsor: IDFG

Subbasin: Upper Snake

FY03 Request: $137,500

5YR Estimate: $374,503

Short Description: This proposed project will identify which life stage survival is most limiting the 

population growth of Yellowstone cutthroat trout in the upper Blackfoot River drainage.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The response, while not clearly written, does clarify some key items and improves the quality of 

the project. The response was illuminating: How is it possible that such a large-scale rainbow removal 

effort (as described in the response) could be underway in the Blackfoot and not have been adequately 

described in the original proposal? While the proposal has its strong points, it falls short of being a 

comprehensive proposal aimed at managing Yellowstone cutthroat trout (and the non-native rainbow trout) 

in the Blackfoot River subbasin. A more comprehensive, watershed-level approach is recommended for 

management of Yellowstone cutthroat trout in the Blackfoot subbasin. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

This work will allow for the collection of survival/mortality data, which is needed for developing 

management strategies for this species.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

44

ProjectID: 33002

Establish Instream Flow and Reservoir Pool Habitat for Native and Other Trout in the Upper Snake 

River/American Falls Fragment Area

Sponsor: IDFG

Subbasin: Upper Snake

FY03 Request: $104,100

5YR Estimate: $1,055,700

Short Description: Assess instream flows and American Falls Reservoir fishery pool shortfall for 

sustainable Yellowstone cutthroat trout and other game fish species. Identify options and long-term 

strategies for improving water quantities where necessary.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable because the potential benefits to fish and wildlife were largely unsubstantiated. There is clear 

evidence of a long-standing biological problem in low flow years stemming from over appropriation of 

river flows. However, neither proposal nor presentation offered avenues that seemed sufficiently strong or 

novel to achieve solutions. There was no evidence of active collaboration with the Shoshone–Bannock 

Tribes. The claim of native fish benefits is tenuous, with 97% of the American Falls Reservoir catch being 

nonnative species.

ProjectID: 33008

Assessing effects of Columbia River Basin anadromous fish flow management on the aquatic ecology of 

the Henry's Fork watershed

Sponsor: HFF

Subbasin: Upper Snake

FY03 Request: $211,596

5YR Estimate: $618,280

Short Description: This multi-partner project will assess the effects of the Columbia River Basin 

hydroelectric operations on aquatic ecology of the Upper Snake River Subbasin, specifically the Henry's 

Fork watershed.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments:

Fundable. The response justifies the proposal as having legitimate ties to anadromous fish flow 

augmentation, a connection that was not made in the presentation. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

CBFWA believes that the proposal does not address how it mitigates for losses created by the Federal 

Hydrosystem. The hydrologic problems in the Henry’s Fork watershed are a result of over allocating water 

for irrigation needs and not the operations of the Federal Hydroelectric Dams. Additional monitoring will 

likely confirm that over-winter survival is the limiting factor, but this is already well established. Past 

attempts to reduce this limiting factor have had minimal success, so how will information collected result in 

new and innovative management alternatives? Responses to ISRP concerns link this data to reservoir 

operations but a long history both in the Missouri River and Columbia River basins where reservoir 

operators are not inclined to modify water flows for fish and wildlife unless mandated, makes this an

unlikely outcome.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

45

ProjectID: 33012

Flow Augmentation In The Upper Snake River Sub-Basin To Benefit Anadromous, Resident Fish And 

Wildlife Species.

Sponsor: USBWU

Subbasin: Upper Snake

Proposal withdrawn.

ProjectID: 33010

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Fish Production Program

Sponsor: SBT

Subbasin: Upper Snake

FY03 Request: $90,000

5YR Estimate: $90,000

Short Description: Assess history, current status and future fish production needs of the ShoshoneBannock Tribes in the Upper Snake Subbasin.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. This is the follow-up proposal to the now-terminated Joint Culture Facility project. The 

response addresses some of the ISRP’s concerns; however, it provides little additional information on the 

organization and membership of the TOC (Technical Oversight Committee) and SOT (Scientific Oversight 

Committee) beyond that provided in the original proposal. It still fails to provide substantive detail on SOT 

member criteria, tasks, etc. Curiously, the CBFWA technical review reflects these same concerns (in some 

detail), yet the CBFWA funding category was “High Priority”. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

CBFWA found that it was difficult to decipher what was being proposed. Bringing a group of experts 

together chosen from all competing entities within a specific geographical area would provide direction for 

resident fish resources in the upper Snake River province; however, specific rules for who and how they 

will be selected, and safeguards that would ensure independence of the board are not supplied. Once 

established, would this group continue? If so, why were no funds allocated to out-year budgets? CBFWA 

believes that the general concept is good but unless the proponent provides additional detail, the current 

proposal is inadequate. Responses to ISRP concerns still do not provide specifics about this process. 

CBFWA proposes that the sponsors consult with the CDAT to develop procedures to appoint board 

members. 

ProjectID: 33013

Evaluation of Pisces Fish Protective Water Intake System

Sponsor: BPI

Subbasin: Upper Snake

FY03 Request: $273,500

5YR Estimate: $273,500

Short Description: Complete development and testing of the Pisces Unit in a controlled location to 

evaluate fish reaction and fish passage efficiency.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Do Not Fund

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not Fundable. A response was requested but not provided.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments: A response is needed. Project proponents need to 

identify guidance problems that can be overcome by using this equipment. A convincing argument needs to 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

46

be made that this equipment has benefits to fish that are not available with other technology. Both this 

proposal and a prior presentation (in the Mountain Snake Province) focused nearly exclusively on the 

technology rather than the application. What sort of use is visualized?

CBFWA Review Comments:

There appears to be a lack of coordination with IDFG and the reviewers question the lack of cost share. In 

addition, the reviewers question whether it is appropriate for BPA funds to be used in the development of a 

product that the reviewers perceive will then be sold for profit. The proposal should be submitted for 

consideration in the Mainstem/Systemwide Province the "Innovative" process. 

ProjectID: 33003

Sage Grouse Distribution and Habitat Use in the Upper Snake River Basin, Blackfoot and Willow Creek 

Drainages.

Sponsor: IDFG

Subbasin: Upper Snake

FY03 Request: $211,716

5YR Estimate: $548,316

Short Description: Document sage grouse trends, movements, habitat use and survival to develop 

recovery plan.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. Although the presentation was informative, the proposal was inadequate to justify a response 

and further review. The tasks and methods for the planned research in objectives 1, 2, and 3 are too brief to 

allow a through scientific review. The specific sample areas, methods, sampling frequency and intensity 

(i.e., how many samples of what type where and when), and data collection procedures need to be specified 

in detail. In addition, the ISRP believes that sufficient information may be available in the literature to 

develop a recovery plan for sage grouse in these areas. We suggest that a comprehensive assessment of 

sage grouse habitat be made by the working groups across southern Idaho, including a working group for 

this area, and that a proposal be prepared for protection and rehabilitation of wildlife habitat that would 

benefit not only sage grouse but multiple species as in proposals 199505700 and 199505701.

ProjectID: 33011

Implementing land use for resource and community sustainability at the county and regional level.

Sponsor: IDFG, U of I, MSU, OSC

Subbasin: Upper Snake

FY03 Request: $243,051

5YR Estimate: $721,651

Short Description: Resource and community information will be assembled into a GIS decision support 

system to be used by county commissioners and planners in implementing land use.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. This project would develop a software package and computer-based system for land-use 

planning in Madison, Fremont, and Teton counties in southeastern Idaho. An inventory of aquatic, 

terrestrial, and physical resources would be developed and included in a GIS package. Results of social 

and community resource assessments, based on representative surveys, focus groups, and public forums 

would be included. Coding, rules, and sub-models of important database elements based on sensitivity to 

disturbance, relative rarity, land-use type, and risk would be developed. 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

47

This effort is sound in a technical sense, although Council might wish to consider whether this activity is 

compatible with FWP goals and precedents. The ISRP initially was concerned about how such a project 

would be perceived (and received) by local officials. The response and the letters of support provided were 

strong and convincing. However, only Fremont County indicated support, but the work is planned for 

Teton and Madison counties as well.

CBFWA Review Comments:

The Henry’s Fork watershed has a wealth of information while other watersheds have far less information 

to work with. The amount of work done within this watershed has clearly identified the limiting factor as 

over winter juvenile survival; however, the fishery continues to support heavy use so the limiting factors 

maybe a normal condition. Areas that are highly impacted and are poorly studied would likely result in 

greater benefits to fish, fisheries, ecology of the area, and the watershed.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

48

PART II. Columbia Cascade Province

The proposals are arranged by subbasin and in close to the same order they were presented during 

the ISRP site visit workshop.

GENERAL COMMENTS

Relative effectiveness of projects. The likely effectiveness for restoring salmon to the province 

differed markedly among projects reviewed. Two salmon-related proposals rose above the others 

because of their potential to add significantly to the numbers of adult salmon returning to the 

Columbia River. These two are straightforward efforts to restore salmon to areas from which they 

have been extirpated, and have a very high likelihood of success. These are Project ID

#199604000 Evaluate the Feasibility and Risks of Coho Reintroduction in the mid-Columbia, and 

Project ID #200001300 Evaluate an Experimental Re-introduction of Sockeye Salmon into Skaha 

Lake, in conjunction with Project ID #29016 Return of Sockeye Salmon to their Historic Range. 

At the other extreme, we found the Salmon Creek proposal, Project ID #199604200 Restore and 

Enhance Anadromous Fish Populations and Habitat in Salmon Creek, to be unjustified on the 

basis of small numbers of fish expected to be produced (in the low hundreds of returning adults 

based on the oral presentation, but not discussed in the proposal) when compared to the vast 

amount of effort and resources ($17 to $20 million, plus $500,000 annual operation and 

maintenance costs) required to restore the highly degraded habitat (dewatered for the lowest four 

miles, etc.) and the uncertainty of intended results.

Coho were formerly present in the mid-Columbia and it is reasonable that they be re-introduced. 

Efforts by this project to date have resulted in returning adults that have spawned successfully in 

the wild, and provided a broodstock for future propagation. We recommend that this project be 

given high priority for funding, but at levels commensurate with the specific comments we 

provide later in the text.

Sockeye were formerly present and abundant throughout the system of lakes in the Okanogan 

basin in the U. S. and Canada, prior to their being blocked by irrigation dams in both countries. If 

concerns are alleviated about the potential for returning sockeye and other salmon and steelhead 

to transmit diseases to fishes now present in the Canadian portion of the basin (Project ID 

##200001300 Evaluate an Experimental Re-introduction of Sockeye Salmon into Skaha Lake), it 

appears that the Canadian entities will agree to allow their reintroduction. The associated study, 

Project ID #29016 Return of Sockeye Salmon to their Historic Range, is proposed to investigate 

the feasibility of providing passage from Skaha Lake into Okanogan Lake by either removing or 

altering the irrigation dam between them. It is estimated that an additional 18,000 adult sockeye 

might return to spawn in the area if opened. Other salmon and steelhead would also benefit.

Methow River Water Conflicts. Conflicts over water use in the Methow River basin are intense, 

and at the time of the ISRP’s provincial review there were unresolved issues, particularly between 

NMFS and the Methow Valley Irrigation District (MVID). Several Methow Valley proposals 

were predicated on these water management questions. A settlement agreement is now in place 

(or being finalized) at the time this final ISRP report is written. Some proposals may need to be 

revised and reconsidered, in particular, Project 29031 “Out Year Operations and Maintenance 

Costs Required to Implement/Carry out MVID Rehabilitation Project.”

 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

49

UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER SUBBASIN

ProjectID: 29009

Acquire Dole-Beebe Property and Associated Water Rights

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Columbia Upper Middle

FY03 Request: $896,500 Adjusted FY03 Budget: $396,500

5YR Estimate: $929,700 Adjusted 5YR Estimate: $429,700

Short Description: Protect and enhance rare Columbia River frontage habitat through acquisition of Dole 

Northwest, Inc. Beebe orchard property and associated water right.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified - see comments)

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable (Qualified)

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable for establishment of options to purchase the property. The response did not reference or provide 

adequate detailed plans for monitoring and evaluation of results of the project including establishment of 

baseline conditions prior to purchase. Detailed plans for M&E should be developed and reviewed by the 

ISRP before purchase of the property. The ISRP believes that it is not appropriate to recommend 

unconditional funding for projects when one of the four primary ISRP evaluation criteria is not met (that 

we review and recommend only projects that “have provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results.”) 

As suggested in the preliminary review, the project sponsors are referred to the ISRP’s review of the Draft 

Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation Project 

(www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2001-4AlbeniFalls.pdf). 

A binding agreement for a conservation easement in perpetuity should be in place before purchase. This is 

a valuable and unique property currently being threatened by development. It includes over 227 acres of 

important riparian and shrub steppe habitat both adjacent to and uplands of the Columbia River. Several 

important aquatic habitats for Upper Columbia River summer steelhead and spring chinook salmon are also 

found within the project’s boundaries including a watercress lined, 10 to12 cfs spring tributary to the 

Columbia River. In addition to the land itself, two valuable water rights are attached to the property, one for 

10 cfs (of which WDFW currently uses 4 cfs for its WDFW Chelan Fish Hatchery operations) and another 

for 15 cfs. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

WDFW is going to contribute $500,000 towards the purchase of this property in FY03, the budget has been 

modified to reflect this action. Question cost of the property because appraisal is not completed Fair 

Market Value. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

50

ProjectID: 29024

Analysis of multiple land uses and their effects to shrub-steppe habitat and wildlife species, such as roads, 

patterns of development and agriculture.

Sponsor: DCTLS

Subbasin: Columbia Upper Middle

FY03 Request: $320,000

5YR Estimate: $416,000

Short Description: Document wildlife species and habitat use with varying types and intensities of land 

use practices, such as urban development, agricultural, rural, development patterns and transportation 

effects, and regulation in shrub-steppe landscapes.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Do Not Fund

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Do not fund. A response was not needed. The proposal was inadequate. The proposal is to use existing 

data to evaluate wildlife habitat and potential risks to populations from roads, development patterns, and 

agricultural uses. The proposal refers to two previous efforts along this line, both of which used mapping 

units that were too large to be of use in the proposed context. Existing data on wildlife will be incorporated 

into the maps. CBFWA managers should contrast usefulness, feasibility, and cost of this proposal with 

proposal #29019.

Conflicting statements are made concerning the basic source of data. In one place it is stated that existing 

data will be augmented by use of 1 meter, or better, resolution satellite imagery for baseline vegetation 

mapping of Douglas County. In another, it is stated that “...large-scale digital aerial photography or 

satellite imagery...” will be used. Source of and cost of basic data should be verified. 

One-meter resolution requires very large data storage and computing capability. A letter of support from 

Douglas County computer services verifying that the facilities and budget are adequate would have been 

helpful. Also, apparently plans include sub-contracting some of the work to the WDFW. A letter of 

support would also have been helpful from WDFW indicating that the proposal is feasible, the budget is 

adequate, and the department is willing to subcontract for the required work.

The proposal should have included a discussion of use and availability of digital data from the Council’s 

mapping project completed by the Northwest Habitat Institute. Also, see proposal #27003, “Characterize 

and Assess Wildlife-Habitat Types and Structural Conditions for Subbasins within the Blue Mountain 

Province” and the ISRP review of proposal #27003 in the Blue Mt. and Mt. Snake Provinces

The proposal left unanswered several questions and issues. Provisions should be included to ensure that 

meta-data for each of the data layers mapped are made readily available to users. There is no monitoring 

and evaluation (QA/QC) section. What is an error and what are acceptable error rates for tasks identified in 

Objectives 2, 3, and 4? How will one monitor and evaluate this project to know that a good job was done? 

The proposal would be stronger with a detailed “ground-truth” component, perhaps in cooperation with 

WDFW to confirm the accuracy and precision of estimates of wildlife habitat use and abundance. 

Complete detail should be given concerning a double-blind sampling and evaluation procedure. The 

specific sample areas, methods, and sampling frequency and intensity (i.e., how many samples of what type 

where and when) would need to be specified. Methods are incomplete for Objectives 4 and 5.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Should be funded by using other funds. Methodology unclear. No protocol for ground-truthing.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

51

ProjectID: 29041

Evaluate Distribution, Abundance, Genetic Structure, and Habitat Use of Bull Trout Populations in the 

Columbia Cascade Province

Sponsor: USFWS

Subbasin: Columbia Upper Middle

FY03 Request: $186,366

5YR Estimate: $554,142

Short Description: Evaluate distribution, abundance, genetic structure and habitat use of bull trout in the 

Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow Rivers. Identify habitat limiting factors for bull trout.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable 

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. A response was not needed. This is a high-quality project with a finely tuned cost-effective 

budget. The proposal is well written, informative, provides appropriate detail on methods and background; 

links to other work throughout the Columbia Basin; and cites current and appropriate references. The 

proposal describes linkages to larger regional bull trout database and evaluation efforts spearheaded by 

Dunham and Riemen out of the Boise USFS Rocky Mountain Experimental Station. Much background 

work has already been done on bull trout in the Wenatchee River by the FWS and its collaborators, which 

was funded by others. The proposal relates the work to the BiOps, (NMFS and FWS), Subbasin summary, 

Washington watershed plans, Forest Service watershed assessments, and the listings by FWS. Oddly, the 

study is fully laid out in the background section (including methods), which makes the later sections 

redundant. The proposed work is nicely related to FWS recovery plan development and to several other 

pertinent studies, mostly not BPA funded.

The project will gather genetic data by sampling 30 fish from each of 40 tributaries to the Wenatchee, 

Entiat and Methow rivers (what about the Okanogan?). Radiotelemetry will be used to track bull trout 

migrations. The objective is to determine whether differences exist within and among bull trout from the 

subbasins. The proponents should include some probabilistic sampling of sites in addition to the traditional 

index sites and sites selected by radio-tracking. References are needed on dolly varden, bull trout, hybrid. 

The contractor for the genetics work is well qualified, and the regional genetics data banking is excellent. 

There are many literature references. There are good resumes of well-qualified staff, including a likely 

contractor for the genetics work. The study will certainly yield information about bull trout that will be 

important for its conservation (as the prior work by the proposer has already done). The information is 

needed for effective management of this species. 

The budget for this proposal is noteworthy; indeed, it is modest (half or less) in comparison to many other 

similar bull trout proposals we have reviewed in earlier provincial reviews. It is targeted very specifically 

and the very helpful budget information is tightly linked to the objectives and tasks identified for the 

project. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

Supplies and equipment could be available at the research station and genetics cost seem high. Could other 

cost reductions can be achieved? USFWS has identified this project as a BiOp project.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

52

ProjectID: 29043

SSHIAP - Columbia Cascade Province

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Columbia Upper Middle

FY03 Request: $390,000

5YR Estimate: $540,000

Short Description: Project will provide routed & segmented hydrolayer, and collate and synthesize data on 

19 aquatic habitat variables over an estimated 22,500 mi of streams in the subbasins of the Columbia 

Cascade Province.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The vision for SSHIAP (Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Assessment Project is an 

information system that is accessible to many stakeholders and provides a starting place (hypotheses) for 

planning future data collection needs. They propose to also provide EDT input variables by reach in the 

SSHIAP database. Users will be able to query SSHIAP in a point or reach-specific manner. The cleaned 

and routed hydrolayer in SSHIAP can also act as a backbone upon which users may attach other 

information (beyond the SSHIAP attributes) that is unique to their own programs or needs. This is 

potentially a worthwhile and useful project. 

However, it should be realized that precise estimates of classification errors in SSHIAP products remain 

outside the practical scope of the SSHIAP project. Within the proposed budget, SSHIAP personnel propose 

to assemble an information system that others in the Columbia Cascade Province can store their data in. It 

remains for other projects and investigators to address assessment of error for fish distribution and other 

information. The ISRP acknowledges that this is a good information system with very competent and 

dedicated personnel and the project is fundable. However, the region should recognize the substantial 

problem acknowledged by the proponents in their response, namely, that SSHIAP is largely dependent on 

existing data, some or most of which has unknown accuracy and precision. The importance of ground 

truthing the data is fully recognized by the proponents, but the many spatial and temporal problems of a 

systematic effort of this kind in which one can have confidence is beyond the current capability and 

responsibility of SSHIAP. The substantial spatial and temporal problems that must be solved to arrive at 

data in which one can have confidence have been unequivocally demonstrated in, for example, 

development of the bull trout detection protocols by the U.S. Forest Service.

CBFWA Review Comments:

NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

53

ProjectID: 29052

Spatial and Temporal Occurrence of Salmonid Pathogens in the Upper Middle Mainstem Subbasin of the 

Columbia Cascade Province

Sponsor: WSU

Subbasin: Columbia Upper Middle

FY03 Request: $220,832

5YR Estimate: $802,097

Short Description: Monitor the occurrence of salmonid pathogens and assess sources, fate, and transport 

throughout the subbasin.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (see ISRP innovative review - ranked in top 10)

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. A response was not needed. A pilot scale version of this proposal was submitted for the 

innovative solicitation and received a favorable review and was ranked number 7 of 37; see 

www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2002-8.htm.

This proposal would use innovative DNA-based detection techniques to assay the waters of the upper 

middle Columbia River basin for presence and relative abundance of several fish pathogens. Synoptic 

information on the occurrence of pathogens in broad regions has been hampered by lack of rapid detection 

techniques (reliance on standard culture approaches). This project would develop for fish pathogens a 

recently developed DNA-based detection system that has already been demonstrated successfully for 

human pathogens. The technique would then be applied to detection of pathogens in water samples 

collected from representative sites throughout the upper middle basin. The analyses would be quantitative. 

They can process great amounts of water and have fine scale detection rate -- 0.002 organisms per liter. 

They would work with collaborators to quantify the significance of the presence of pathogens in the 

environment to actual infection of fish. A dose-response relationship would be evaluated to suggest 

whether the quantities of pathogens per unit of water are sufficient to be an infectious problem for fish. 

This technique would be useful for such pathogen testing efforts as those proposed in the Skaha Lake 

sockeye reintroduction program.

This excellent proposal describes the new technique in appropriate detail to be persuasive that it is 

something worth pursuing for both its technique development and for the pathogen characterization it 

would provide. The idea is so new, however, that it is difficult for the ISRP to evaluate its potential 

importance to fish or its practical implementation until results are seen. It is certainly innovative. The 

proposal goes through a rationale for regional relevance discussing the FWP (briefly), Subbasin Summaries 

(briefly), general BPA objectives, the Governor’s plan, and specific sections and actions of the BiOp. There 

is a good attempt to integrate the proposed work with other pathogen projects (few) and other regional 

assessments. The proposal might have been improved by referencing the several BPA-funded fish-pathogen 

studies of the 1980s. There are good hypotheses, objectives, tasks, and a good timeline. The presentation 

noted that initial samples will be taken from hatchery outfalls where pathogens could be expected to be 

most easily detected. Methods are detailed. Expected benefits overall, and benefits to fish are explicitly 

described. Facilities appear to be excellent and suitable (since the sort of work has already been done for 

human pathogens). There is an excellent set of resumes for well-qualified staff. The project meets ISRP 

evaluation criteria. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

54

ENTIAT RIVER SUBBASIN

ProjectID: 29014

The Effects of Impoundment on Fish and Amphibian Habitat Use in Eastern Washington

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Entiat

FY03 Request: $106,187

5YR Estimate: $441,665

Short Description: Identify hydrological effects of impoundments on fish and amphibian habitat and 

habitat use by comparing free-flowing and impounded systems. Off-channel habitat focus. Enables 

identification of feasibility of remediation by hydrologic manipulation.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments:

Fundable. With the proponents’ responses, this is now an excellent proposal for important topics, both 

physical alterations (effects of impoundments on side channels) and neglected biota (side-channel fish and 

amphibians). 

This is a proposal to compare off-channel habitats and the fish and amphibians in them in rivers that are 

impounded and those that are not. Although the effects of impoundments on both the impounded reach and 

downstream channels have been recognized and studied, the alterations of ecologically rich off-channel 

habitats by changed river hydrology have not received much attention. This is particularly true for 

amphibians, which have not been studied much at all yet use such habitats extensively. The Entiat, Cle 

Elum and Tieton rivers are to be compared (the latter two in the Yakima basin; the Entiat is the only fully 

non-impounded river). Similar alluvial and constrained reaches will be selected for comparisons. If 

impoundment-altered hydrology results in reduction of habitat quality and quantity, then alternatives for 

remediation can be identified.

The initial scientific proposal was good, with excellent background and scientific justification, but was 

initially weak in justification from the management perspective (Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program, 

NMFS’s BiOp, etc.), in its treatment of fish, and in description of sampling methods. The 

technical/scientific background presents abundant literature references to document past research on dams 

and their impoundment effects and on off-channel habitats and the need to study them. A statistical design 

is proposed that includes spatial controls (multiple reaches in the three rivers) and temporal controls (using 

historical aerial photographs). The proposal relies on the Entiat Subbasin Summary and the shared 

stakeholder goals, objectives and strategies for the three river basins for much of its justification relative to 

regional programs. The Forest Service’s watershed assessment is also used as justification. The text 

describes in detail how the research will contribute to objectives and strategies of stakeholders and the fish 

and wildlife needs identified in the Subbasin Summary. Other than listing applicable RPA’s in Part I, the 

initial proposal did not refer to the Council’s FWP or the NMFS’s BiOp, however. Relationships to other 

projects are given for several ecological studies (I-90 Corridor Species Distribution Study, USGS 

Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative, WDFW’s ecoregional planning process) but BPA-funded 

work was only referenced collectively. The proposal states the overall objective (to quantify differences in 

fish and amphibian habitat and habitat utilization patterns between impounded and unimpounded streams) 

and follows with well laid out objectives, tasks, and general methods. A very brief statement of facilities 

notes that much is available from the proposer’s organization (WDFW). There is a long reference list 

accompanying the many citations in the narrative. A listing of a well-qualified staff is followed by wellprepared resumes. Cost sharing is planned with BLM, USFS, WDNR, and other parts of WDFW. 

The response was thorough and exacting in answering the ISRP’s questions in its preliminary report. The 

authors clearly know their subject matter very well. The response provided an excellent summary of the 

fish species expected to be present, with literature documentation. The tables for fish and amphibians are 

thorough and very informative. The ISRP’s questions on sampling were answered. The response provided 

clear references to specific features of the Council’s FWP and to the NMFS’s BiOp. Other BPA projects in 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

55

the vicinity were listed. Additional references were provided. The response further amplified the ISRP’s 

belief that this is a worthwhile scientific proposal that warrants funding both for its quality and for the 

relevance to regional fish management.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Not needed for fish but is needed for amphibians. Question urgency. Check coordination. NMFS has 

identified this as a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 29026

Hanan-Detwiler Passage Improvements

Sponsor: WDFW, YSS

Subbasin: Entiat

FY03 Request: $85,000

5YR Estimate: $95,000

Short Description: The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Yakima Screen Shop 

(YSS) proposes to complete passage improvements within a side channel of the Entiat River. The side 

channel is associated with the Hanan-Detwiler irrigation diversion.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The response is adequate and includes a good breakdown of objectives, tasks, and methods. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

Needs better development of M&E. USFWS are currently performing spawning surveys in the Entiat 

subbasin. The reviewers do not believe that the contingency funds proposed are BPA fundable. NMFS has 

identified this project as a BiOp project.

WENATCHEE RIVER SUBBASIN

ProjectID: 200000200

Final Phase of the Chumstick Culvert Replacement and Habitat Restoration Enhancement

Sponsor: CCCD

Subbasin: Wenatchee

FY03 Request: $326,750 Adjusted FY03 Budget: $0

5YR Estimate: $488,700 Adjusted 5YR Estimate: $61,950

Short Description: Restore salmon and steelhead passage in Chumstick Creek.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable, Low Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The ISRP’s basic concerns were addressed in the response, i.e. culvert replacement is at least 

confined to the area where there is year-round flow. However, the low flow volume is marginal (~ 1 cfs at 

the upper end) and potential benefits to fish uncertain, but probably not large. The small numbers of fish 

likely to benefit from this project make its priority low. 

It is commendable that the Chelan County Conservation District has taken the lead among a number of 

entities, particularly the Chumstick Community Watershed Alliance, Trout Unlimited and several 

governmental agencies, involved in this attempt to rehabilitate a degraded stream and its surroundings. The 

drainage area of Chumstick Creek is said to be 78 square miles. Flows in August and September are about 

2 cfs, according to the proposal. The proposal focuses on 23 culverts that block upstream migration of 

salmon and steelhead. The 2 cfs of flow is apparently measured at RM 0.3 where the first of the culverts is 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

56

present. That culvert has been replaced, as the ISRP saw during our site visit in October. Seven other 

culverts were replaced during phase 1 of the project, which was funded by BPA to the extent of $176,000 

(page 14 of the proposal). As a result, 2.7 miles of Chumstick Creek were opened up to salmon and 

steelhead. The proposal identifies an additional 12 barriers to be removed in the next phase. 

Some important unknowns remain in this proposal. With respect to the ISRP comment that the proposal 

should discuss the extent to which each species might benefit, the sponsors responded that the type of 

survey that would be required to estimate the amount of additional spawning and rearing area that might be 

made available by culvert replacement is not available. The response indicates that flows of around 1 cfs 

occur in the late summer/fall at the upper end of the proposed culvert replacement reach. This volume of 

water suggests that opportunity for increase in salmonid use of the stream is not high. Furthermore, the land 

use practices existing in the watershed suggest that available habitat may be marginal in its capacity to 

support juvenile salmonids, and that suitable gravel for spawning may be scarce. These factors should be 

addressed in a holistic watershed improvement plan that includes the passage problem as well as the 

problem of stream degradation.

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project is critical to realize upstream benefits and should not be further delayed. The Chumstick 

Creek will potentially become a valuable coho stream. WA SRFB has approved funding of $273,100 for 

2002 contingent on the completion of the North Road culvert project. Designs are currently being finalized 

for that project. The budget has been modified to reflect the project sponsors additional needs from BPA to 

complete two additional culvert replacements. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 199604000

Evaluate The Feasibility And Risks Of Coho Reintroduction In Mid-Columbia

Sponsor: YN

Subbasin: Wenatchee

FY03 Request: $2,412,000 Adjusted FY03 Budget: $2,195,191

5YR Estimate: $14,671,200 Adjusted 5YR Estimate: $13,543,221

Short Description: Determine the feasibility of re-establishing a naturally spawning coho population 

within the mid-Columbia tributaries, while keeping adverse ecological impacts on other salmonid species 

of concern within acceptable limits.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Partially Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part. Do not fund the genetic subcomponent of the proposal. 

This is a project to lay the groundwork for re-introduction of coho into the Mid-Columbia watersheds of the 

Wenatchee, Entiat, and Okanogan rivers. Coho have been functionally extinct in the wild in these basins for 

many years, despite the species being raised and released from area hatcheries (particularly Leavenworth 

National Fish Hatchery in the Wenatchee basin). The project has been funded since 1996, with 

experimental work beginning in 1998. It is a feasibility study, with detailed planning, test introductions, 

monitoring of return rates, and special studies of interactions of the newly introduced coho smolts with 

existing populations of steelhead and chinook salmon, some of which are ESA listed. 

The proposal (with attachments) was well done. The evaluation of re-introduction has been well planned 

and generally well thought out. An environmental assessment under NEPA was carried out, with a finding 

of no significant impact (the document was provided with the proposal). Because hatcheries will be used 

extensively to raise smolts for test releases and potentially for continuing the reintroduction efforts, a 

Hatchery and Genetics Management Plan was prepared and approved by the ISRP after thorough review 

(also included with the proposal). The 1999 annual report was appended to give example results. Many of 

the concerns of ISRP in previous years’ reviews were largely addressed during the Step 2 Process and in 

the proposal. 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

57

The proposal generally meets the ISRP review criteria. There would be a definite benefit to fish and 

wildlife from re-introduction of coho, which once were abundant. The proposal lists valuable results, both 

in the proposal and in attachments. There is a good background section with references to the Subbasin 

Summary (although not specifically to the FWP or BiOp). The work has a well-stated vision, with welldefined objectives and strategies. There is an excellent breakdown of objectives, tasks, rationales, and 

methods (described in a level of detail appropriate for the length of the proposal). Monitoring is built in as 

an integral part of the feasibility study. Many references are provided (some attached) to document both 

background and results. Resumes are excellent. There are good maps in the attachments. In its preliminary 

report, the ISRP discussed several questions raised in review and requested a response. 

The response provided a comprehensive set of answers to the ISRP’s initial concerns about this project. 

The ISRP was torn in its preliminary review between the positive early signs of success, and negative 

aspects such as the apparent acceleration of artificial production facilities that might not be needed, a 

genetic program that seemed at odds with the fully non-native origins of the fish, and debatable definitions 

of success. The response demonstrated that there has been a thorough and thoughtful analysis of these 

matters. The responses, including the attached schedule and table of the permitting decision process, were 

very helpful. There could still be healthy scientific debate over some of the proposed tasks, but that does 

not negate the importance of a continued feasibility study (in fact, would be good reason to continue it). 

The fear that there would be a major commitment to new facilities (either before feasibility was 

demonstrated or that were unnecessary if feasibility has been demonstrated) was alleviated by the 

explanations. However, the ISRP’s concerns over the genetic portion of the project remain. 

The genetic monitoring and analysis and the proposed cryogenic components of the proposed work are not 

recommended for funding, as they are not justified due to the non-native origin of the coho reintroduction 

stock. Evaluation of the various donor stocks’ performance and fitness could be evaluated more directly 

from simple tagging studies, using PIT tags or other direct marks. It is not clear what difference genetic 

background makes in this situation. Traditional genetic analyses are not likely to help measure the degree to 

which recently naturalized hatchery fish contribute to the population relative to earlier naturalized fish. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

The project sponsor (YIN) has reduced their budget to FY 2002 funding level plus 3.4% for FY 2003. The 

budget will increase by 3.4% each year. Specific reductions will be identified during contracting with 

BPA.

ProjectID: 29039

The effects of fine sediment on the hyporheic zone: monitoring and evaluating the influence of hyporheic 

exchange flows on stream temperature.

Sponsor: USFS

Subbasin: Wenatchee

FY03 Request: $102,039

5YR Estimate: $318,525

Short Description: Implement sediment and temperature monitoring; research to evaluate the influence of 

hyporheic exchange flows on stream temperature and thermal refugia; research to evaluate the influence of 

fine sediment on the hyporheic zone.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. This project would likely provide important information on prioritizing stream habitat 

restoration projects. The project would conduct research to evaluate the influence of hyporheic exchange 

flows on stream temperature and thermal refugia for fish, particularly the influence of fine sediments on 

hyporheic water exchange (often increased by human activities) and resulting stream temperatures. High 

summer temperatures are an important limiting factor for salmonids in the Province and hyporheic flow is 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

58

important for control of temperature. The research would monitor fine sediment in selected reaches of the 

Wenatchee River and its tributaries, measure hyporheic flow rates, and evaluate these flow rates on stream 

temperatures as microhabitats, and at channel unit and reach scales using extensive temperature monitoring. 

The proposal is very strong as a scientific proposal justifying research on a topic that has yet to make its 

way into regional planning. There is an excellent background section with abundant and persuasive 

scientific documentation. The proposal states that hyporheic flow and its implications for stream 

temperature have not been explicitly made part of regional programs. Nonetheless, the proposers take great 

pains to justify why it should be included and discusses relevance to the subbasin summary, FWP, and AllH paper. The proposal relates the work to Forest Service projects that monitor sediment and temperature, 

but not to BPA-funded ones. 

The proponent provided a thorough and informative response to the ISRP concerns. The relevance to 

management actions is stated to be for water temperature standards, land use management (to control 

siltation), and channel management to foster natural flushing of fine sediment. Knowledge of hyporheic 

flows and sediment is the key to better management and more effective restoration projects. Relevance to 

the ISRP’s general concerns about monitoring is discussed in the response. Other BPA proposals are 

provided for relevance to BPA programs, although not funded ones. Methods were well described and 

informative. The ISRP now considers this to be a very good proposal that tackles a topic that has received 

insufficient attention in watershed management.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Objectives need to be clarified. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 29027

Comprehensive Inventory and Prioritization of Fish Passage and Screening Problems in the Wenatchee and 

Entiat Subbasins

Sponsor: WDFW, YSS

Subbasin: Wenatchee

FY03 Request: $361,585 Adjusted FY03 Budget: $277,436

5YR Estimate: $1,338,952 Adjusted 5YR Estimate: $1,254,803

Short Description: Locate and evaluate all culverts, dams, fishways, water diversions, and other humanmade features in the Wenatchee and Entiat subbasins, conduct habitat assessments, and prioritize all 

barriers and unscreened or inadequately screened water diversions.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The need for more inventory work is given persuasively, suggesting that only about 40% of the 

stream area has been surveyed. Other survey efforts are summarized. The big difference seems to be that 

this inventory would be fully stream based, not road based (i.e. cover all stream length where fish would 

be expected if there were not barriers). Justification by SS, limiting factors analysis, etc. is good. The 

relationship to other projects is well described both in that section and in the background. Objectives are 

clear, as are the tasks. The methods rely on standard procedures for both surveys and prioritization 

developed by the WDFW. 

The response adequately addresses preliminary ISRP concerns with monitoring and evaluation, fish 

presence, etc.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Assure work is coordinated with Chelan County. The reviewers recommend reducing the staff proposed by 

1 FTE and find other sources for the 2 4x4 pickup trucks in 2003. The budget has been reduced to reflect 

these changes. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

59

ProjectID: 29028

Fabricate and Install Three New Fish Screens on Wenatchee River Diversions

Sponsor: WDFW, YSS

Subbasin: Wenatchee

FY03 Request: $235,000 Adjusted FY03 Budget: $184,976

5YR Estimate: $291,135 Adjusted 5YR Estimate: $241,111

Short Description: WDFW, YSS proposes to fabricate and install 2 new fish screening facilities, and 

rehabilitate one existing screening facility, on 3 irrigation diversions on the Wenatchee River and 

tributaries. The facilities will be in compliance with current criteria.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The response adequately described the O&M plans and M&E plans for effectiveness monitoring. 

Specifically, that this project include pre-construction data and assure that data will be available postconstruction to evaluate the cumulative effects of this and other projects. The proponents should have 

included mention of the WDFW basinwide monitoring strategy under development.

CBFWA Review Comments:

These are important diversions that need to be screened. There is no cost share represented in the proposed 

budget. The budget should be reduced by 15% in order to encourage cost share by the landowners or other 

responsible parties. A contingency of $17,381 is identified in the proposal. These funds should be 

removed from the proposal. The budget has been modified to reflect these changes. NMFS has identified 

this project as a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 29053

Icicle/Wenatchee Habitat Acquisition

Sponsor: CDLT

Subbasin: Wenatchee

FY03 Request: $1,547,750 Adjusted FY03 Budget: $257,500

5YR Estimate: $1,601,750 Adjusted 5YR Estimate: $377,000

Short Description: Acquire and protect a critical 50-acre area of salmonid spawning and rearing habitat at 

the confluence of the Icicle and Wenatchee Rivers.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified - see comments)

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority (Qualified)

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable for establishment of options to purchase the property at high priority. There is an abundance of 

important species to protect. This property seems to include important complex channel-off-channel, 

wetland, etc. habitat. The side channel adjacent to the property is apparently connected to the main channel 

during high spring flows. It is especially valuable to have been supplied the numbers of redds for various 

species in the WDFW index site. The Icicle is a key watershed designated by the Forest Service. The 

organization seems to be quite reputable with in-kind cost shares. 

The ISRP appreciated the careful response to most of our questions and concerns; however, the response 

did not reference or provide adequate detailed plans for monitoring and evaluation of results of the project 

including establishment of baseline conditions at the time of purchase. The proponents propose that 

monitoring and evaluation will be conducted by other agencies including the Chelan County PUD (annual 

redd counts for spring and summer Chinook), the WDFW (counts steelhead redds), the USFWS (monitors 

use of the site by bull trout), and the Yakama Nation (counts coho redds in the lower Icicle). Detailed 

plans for M&E should be developed and reviewed by the ISRP before purchase of the property. The ISRP 

believes that it is not appropriate to recommend unconditional funding for projects when one of the four 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

60

primary ISRP review criteria is that we review and recommend only projects that “have provisions for 

monitoring and evaluation of results.” 

CBFWA Review Comments:

Appraisal price will likely be less than budget amount. Encourage cost share. Potential lost opportunity. 

The review group would like to see alternative strategies for acquiring this property (cost share, riparian 

parcels only, conservation easements). This project received $1,337,800 from the WA SRFB for 2003. 

The budget has been adjusted by the project sponsor to reflect this. NMFS has identified this project as a 

BiOp project.

METHOW RIVER SUBBASIN

ProjectID: 29046

Develop a Coordinated Resource Management Plan for Beaver Creek and plan and implement habitat 

restoration activities.

Sponsor: OCD

Subbasin: Methow

FY03 Request: $51,783 Adjusted FY03 Budget: $24,458

5YR Estimate: $133,783 Adjusted 5YR Estimate: $106,458

Short Description: Develop a Coordinated Resource Management Plan for the Beaver Creek drainage; 

restore habitat complexity; protect and restore riparian habitat; and research alternatives for ensuring 

perennial flow in lower Beaver Creek.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified - see comments)

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable (Qualified)

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The sponsor’s response to most ISRP concerns is adequate; however, the lack of an 

Implementation Monitoring plan and a Tier I monitoring plan for documentation and evaluation of benefits 

to anadromous fish is a serious deficiency that needs to be rectified prior to funding. Detailed plans for 

M&E should be developed and reviewed by the ISRP before funding of the project. The ISRP believes that 

it is not appropriate to recommend unconditional funding for projects when one of the four primary ISRP 

review criteria is not met (that we recommend only projects that “have provisions for monitoring and 

evaluation of results.”). 

Proposal #29010 in the same subbasin proposes to use the recommendations of The Draft Strategy 

Framework of the Washington Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy currently in development by the 

Washington Governor’s Salmon Recovery Team to guide development of a Monitoring and Evaluation 

Plan, but details are not given. Perhaps these proponents of these projects could cooperate in development 

of a monitoring plan giving the specific sample areas, methods, and sampling frequency and intensity (i.e., 

how many samples of what type where and when) as requested by the ISRP.

CBFWA Review Comments:

NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project. Due to WA SRFB funding, the project sponsor has 

requested that the budget for 2003 be reduced by $27,325 (1/3 FTE = $20,000, 3 pressure transducers = 

$6,500, and office space rental = $825). The total FY 2003 project cost of $51,783 has been reduced to 

$24,458 accordingly.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

61

ProjectID: 29010

Restore Passage on Private Lands in Beaver Creek Drainage to Benefit Spring Chinook, Steelhead and 

Bulltrout

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Methow

FY03 Request: $239,774 Adjusted FY03 Budget: $0

5YR Estimate: $1,204,074 Adjusted 5YR Estimate: $345,275

Short Description: This project will further long-term, ongoing efforts to fully restore anadromous fish 

passage on private lands within the Beaver Creek drainage.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified - see comments)

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable (Qualified)

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The response seemed to adequately show that this project is an initial one to remove instream 

barriers, while 29046, companion proposal, is for longer-range planning among private landowners. The 

sponsor’s response to most ISRP concerns is adequate; however, the lack of an Implementation Monitoring 

plan and a Tier I monitoring plan for documentation and evaluation of benefits to anadromous fish is a 

serious deficiency that needs to be rectified prior to funding. Detailed plans for M&E should be developed 

and reviewed by the ISRP before funding of the project. The ISRP believes that it is not appropriate to 

recommend unconditional funding for projects when one of the four primary ISRP evaluation criteria is not 

met (that we recommend only projects that “have provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results.”). 

The proponents propose to follow the guidelines of The Draft Strategy Framework of the Washington 

Comprehensive Monitoring Strategy currently in development by the Washington Governor’s Salmon 

Recovery Team. This strategy has the proper goals with intentions of implementing the probabilistic 

sampling plan developed by the USEPA in their EMAP program. Unfortunately, details are not available 

for reviewed by the ISRP and some of the references provide only general guidelines. Proposal #29046 in 

the same subbasin is also lacking an adequate Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. Perhaps these projects 

should cooperate in development a Tier I monitoring plan in addition to providing individual plans for 

implementation monitoring.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Due to funding for a Coordinated Resource Management Plan from the WA SRFB, the costs for this 

project can be reduced by 20% across the board and implementation of this project can be deferred for one 

year. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project. 

ProjectID: 29020

Beaver CR Campground Rehabilitation

Sponsor: OCD

Subbasin: Methow

FY03 Request: $60,445

5YR Estimate: $71,095

Short Description: Restore riparian area of Beaver CR campground by building 1300 feet of fencing to 

keep users away from stream bank. Plant as needed riparian species within the fenced area to speed 

restoration of riparian zone. Build hitching rails.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. A response was not warranted. The proposal does not demonstrate a significant benefit to 

fish and wildlife because of the size of the riparian area to be protected and the unlikely change in the use. 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

62

The project might be funded later under #29046 if it ranks out high in priority in the CRMP. It is unclear 

if this project has been identified as a high priority project in a watershed assessment of the subbasin.

This proposal lacks much in detail and content (e.g., no resumes) and no monitoring and evaluation (M&E) 

plan to see if the riparian fencing and replanting works. The proposal is good in that there is good 

community support with volunteer materials and labor. The section on relationships to other projects could 

have better identified the other Beaver Creek work and proposals presented in the WDFW proposal (29010) 

and placed this work in that context (how important is the riparian problem at the campground relative to 

barriers, for example). It is unclear what permits and NEPA work are needed for this project. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 29037

Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment in the Columbia Cascade Province

Sponsor: WDFW, YN, CCT

Subbasin: Methow

FY03 Request: $925,563 Adjusted FY03 Budget: $500,000

5YR Estimate: $1,816,938 Adjusted 5YR Estimate: $800,000

Short Description: Provide an analytic foundation, including refinement of the coarse screen EDT, needed 

for the aquatic assessment and management components of subbasin plans in the Columbia Cascade 

Province.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not Fundable. No response was provided to address the ISRP’s preliminary review concerns. 

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments: 

A response is needed. To be fundable this proposal should have a letter of support from the Council that it 

is needed as part of the subbasin planning effort. 

The proposal should be reviewed in the context of the subbasin planning effort rather than the provincial 

review. Would this proposal add significant value to the EDT analysis already envisioned and potentially 

funded through that effort. The proponents should indicate what scale of information is needed for the 

subbasin planning? A review of the scientific soundness of EDT and this further refinement needs to be 

done at a more in depth level than can provided as part of the Columbia Cascade Provincial Review. 

Perhaps this project and related EDT activities should be reviewed by the Council’s and NMFS’ 

Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB) in the broader context of subbasin planning and recovery of 

anadromous fish in the entire Columbia Basin. 

The response should report current results from the use of EDT in the Entiat subbasin, and other subbasins 

starting with the Grand Ronde subbasin in 1992 and illustrate the role of EDT in selection of specific 

management actions for these subbasins. The response should identify specific management actions that 

have or will be carried out as a direct result of the use of EDT. Please give names and contact information 

of individuals responsible for these management actions. Include letters of support from individuals who 

have used EDT to reach consensus on management actions.

Is the following quote from proposal #29021 correct? “Habitat models such as the Ecosystem Diagnosis 

and Treatment model provide an adequately clear picture for relative conditions across a well-defined set of 

environmental attributes but stop short of assisting planners and decision-makers with identifying specific 

actions (e.g., realign a segment of stream, mobilize and store sediments, normalize a hydrograph, stabilize a 

bank, remove a road, modify a dike structure) that will result in changes in the condition of habitat 

attributes, or the ability to assess the effects of specific actions.” If correct, explain why this project 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

63

should be funded. If incorrect, provide some counter examples. Proposal #29021 also has the critical 

question “Which alternative project strategy exhibits the ‘best’ expected performance or outcome?” Is this 

an output of an EDT analysis? Give real illustrations. 

What exactly is the expected outcome of the proposed EDT analysis for a given subbasin? In the 

relationship to other projects the phrases “EDT could be used to.....” or “EDT may be useful in ......” are 

given. Where are the demonstrated important uses and results?

The response should describe in detail a monitoring and evaluation component for this project. What real 

data will be collected and how will the project be evaluated (ground truthed)? How and when will one 

know that the project was a success or a failure? Apparently, the Regional Analytical Advisory Committee 

will provide some ground-truthing and review of EDT for use in subbasin planning, but these efforts are 

just underway and should be described in detail. What is the work plan and method developed by the 

RAAC for the EDT validation project? The copy of the proposal may have been cut off short. References 

and resumes should be given. The response should contain references to and perhaps copies of critical 

documents (technical appendices) that give the actual mathematical formulas and methods behind EDT.

CBFWA Review Comments:

The budget for this project has been reduced to reflect ecosystem diagnosis but not treatment and salmon 

recovery funding is being pursued. Funding was not provided through the WA SRFB process. NMFS has 

identified this project as a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 29030

Early life history and survival of spring chinook salmon and steelhead in the Methow River Basin

Sponsor: PNNL

Subbasin: Methow

FY03 Request: $382,939

5YR Estimate: $1,150,939

Short Description: Investigate differential survival, behavior and habitat selection of juvenile spring 

chinook salmon and steelhead in relation to associated with warm groundwater presence, river ice, and 

other habitat parameters.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable 

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The proposal focuses on overwinter survival, when major mortalities of juveniles are thought to 

occur. The objective is to identify features of the habitat that might be enhanced to improve survival. The 

response regarding the ISRP’s question on hatchery vs. wild fish use of habitat seems adequate. Also, they 

have thought through the sampling problems raised by the ISRP. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

64

ProjectID: 29034

Life History Study of Salmonid Rearing In The Upper Methow River

Sponsor: YIN

Subbasin: Methow

FY03 Request: $273,710 (Adjusted $365,250 - not noted in CBFWA table)

5YR Estimate: $788,793 (Adjusted $1,075,750 - not noted in CBFWA table)

Short Description: This research proposal is design to address the need to understand salmonid temporal 

and spatial life history patterns and productivity in the upper Methow River, with the focus in the 

intermittent portion of this reach.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not Fundable. The response to ISRP’s preliminary concerns was not adequate. The changes in the budget 

section did not provide enough detail to satisfy the ISRP’s concerns:

Will the tagging (marking) have an effect on recapture rates in the same or lower trap? It seems 

that the marking methods should have been researched and described in the proposal. Have the 

sponsors thought about the possibility that some migration might occur subsurface in this 

extremely permeable substrate, where fish would not be susceptible to the rotary traps?

Methods in Objective 3 and 4 should include a description of sampling procedures for selection of 

the “20% of each reach” or “pools” during the dry period. Will the sampling be probabilistic to 

allow statistical inferences to the entire study area? Will the same sites be snorkeled each time, or 

will new ‘random’ sites be selected? Also, objectives 3 and 4 should include a comparison of 

habitat availability vs. habitat used using appropriate sampling methods and analysis techniques 

described in, for example, Manly (1993, 1998) and Alldredge (1998). 

However, the half page narrative response attempted to address the ISRP concern about management 

application of the proposal.

CBFWA Technical Comments:

NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 29002

Conjunctive Use and River Enhancement (CURE) for Habitat Improvement in the Upper Methow River

Sponsor: CBC

Subbasin: Methow

FY03 Request: $500,000

5YR Estimate: $5,082,050

Short Description: Enhance late summer streamflows in the Upper Methow river through direct 

streamflow augmentation using groundwater from the prolific Methow Aquifer. Groundwater pumping 

rates of up to 25 cfs for periods of up to 90 days (4,600 AF storage equivalent).

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Partially Disagree - Fundable in Part, Low Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part only for the pilot study at low priority. The response focuses on the pilot aspect of the 

proposal. As such, it would be a valid and probably useful scientific test, whether or not the bigger idea has 

merit and would be acceptable. The ISRP was initially skeptical, but now see some merit in a test well and 

pumping tests. That pilot study would be useful and is fundable. 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

65

The ISRP was not convinced that increased flow in the Methow River through the proposed upwelling 

reach would be of significant benefit to fish. Pumping from the groundwater storage above this reach may 

result in harm. The ISRP would not be in favor of committing support beyond the initial modeling and pilot 

tests. The proponents did not provide detailed plans as requested for baseline pre-project and long term 

monitoring in the Chewuch and Methow Rivers. It is not possible to review a proposal that “...will include 

a detailed M&E plan, developed in coordination with local agency biologists.”

CBFWA Review Comments:

Lacks universal public acceptance. May be foregoing less expensive alternatives. NMFS has identified 

this project as a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 29036

Ali Long Rearing Channel Habitat Improvements- Upper Methow River

Sponsor: YIN

Subbasin: Methow

FY03 Request: $58,500

5YR Estimate: $95,500

Short Description: Reconnect a historic side channel in the upper Methow River, and addition of 

inchannel structure as needed to increase channel complexity.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not Fundable. A response was not needed. The proposal is to reconnect a side channel of the Methow 

River at RM 69 to the main stream. The intent is to open up the channel as rearing habitat for salmonids. 

However, it is acknowledged that it is difficult to describe the importance this area might have because it is 

located within that portion of the Methow River that is frequently dewatered in the fall and winter. We note 

that proposal #29018 provides a map of the Methow River showing this reach as a “losing reach”, where 

there is a net loss of water. Under the circumstances it would seem to be unwise to proceed with the current 

proposal to enlarge the area of the stream, when there is the possibility that it might lead to higher losses of 

water. The action proposed should probably wait for the results of #29018 before proceeding with this idea.

Do not fund until the hydrology of the Methow Basin is better understood, so that predictions of effects of 

such actions on net stream flow might be possible. Rather than increasing habitat for rearing of juvenile 

salmonids, the project might result in increasing the number of juveniles that are stranded when the area 

dewaters.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Concern about dewatering in some years. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

66

ProjectID: 29044

Protecting Habitat on Private Lands in the Methow Watershed

Sponsor: N/A

Subbasin: Methow

FY03 Request: $1,153,100 Adjusted FY03 Budget: $200,000

5YR Estimate: $3,459,300 Adjusted 5YR Estimate: $600,000

Short Description: Protect and provide long-term stewardship of habitat on private lands in the Methow 

Watershed through the use of perpetual conservation easements.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified - see comments)

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority (Qualified)

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable with high priority. The response is adequate with regard to ISRP questions about value towards 

mitigating lost wildlife habitat and procedures for prioritizing properties for inclusion in the project. The 

key to long-term environmental stewardship of habitat is the willing participation of private landowners. 

This project, with its further explanation in the response, seems to the ISRP to offer a major step toward 

that goal. BPA funding would add to an already successful non-BPA effort. 

The ISRP appreciated the careful response to most of our questions and concerns; however, the response 

did not provide adequate detailed plans for monitoring and evaluation of biological results of the project 

including establishment of baseline conditions at the time of contracting for easements. The ISRP 

recommends that monitoring and evaluation be contracted to government or tribal agencies, including the 

WDFW, USFWS, and perhaps others, to expand ongoing monitoring and evaluation efforts to lands 

included in this project. Detailed plans for M&E should be developed and reviewed by the ISRP before 

full funding of this project. The ISRP believes that it is not appropriate to recommend unconditional 

funding for projects when one of the four primary guidelines is that we review and recommend only 

projects that “have provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results.” 

CBFWA Review Comments:

Proposal lacks detail necessary for thorough technical review (How will properties be selected?) M&E is 

inadequate and need is questionable. Riparian and salmon habitats are the same thing and would not need 

separate easements. This project received $424,800 from the WA SRFB funding for 2002. CBFWA 

supports this project at a reduced rate. The budget has been modified to reflect a reduced rate of 

implementation of $75,000 per year. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 29025

Columbia Cascade Province Pump Screening

Sponsor: WDFW, YSS

Subbasin: Methow

FY03 Request: $218,918

5YR Estimate: $916,142

Short Description: Comprehensive re-assessment, re-inventory, and mitigation of previously inventoried 

pump screen sites in these three subbasins.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The response adequately answered the ISRP’s questions. 

This project would revisit the screens on pumped water diversions in the Methow, Entiat, and Wenatchee 

basins in order to bring all of them up to current federal and state screening standards. All pump intakes 

would be inventoried using existing databases. An assessment and correction protocol would be modeled 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

67

after the Voluntary Cooperative Compliance Program, currently being used in the Walla Walla subbasin 

funded by BPA. The protocol would include diversion owner agreements (water rights and O&M 

responsibilities), cost-share agreements (15% by owner), permitting, and coordination with local vendors 

for making corrective measures to the intakes. Local venders would do the installations. This project 

would identify appropriate screens for the site and irrigators needs. A four-year project would move 

progressively from basin to basin. The project would be undertaken by the Washington DFW’s Yakima 

Screen Shop, which has a long track record of screen design and installation. Plans for funding through the 

state have not materialized because of budget shortfalls, the work was shifted to the salmon recovery 

program (for which WDFW is not eligible), and BPA is being asked to fund the work. 

The proposal was straightforward and well written, generally meeting the ISRP evaluation criteria. There 

was a good background section, which cited the subbasin summaries and the Habitat Limiting Factors 

Analysis. The status of inventories and of the screening criteria were provided and the need was adequately 

justified. The proposers expect clear and immediate benefits to fish from the improvements in screens. The 

work was well related to regional needs with specific discussions of the HLFA, each subbasin’s Subbasin 

Summary, the NMFS BiOp (with specific RPA cited), the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board’s 

technical team recommendations, and the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program. A general text on 

relationship to other projects was adequate even though it did not cite specific projects. There are logical 

and explicit objectives and tasks for 3 years. The Yakima Screen Shop has excellent staff and facilities and 

a long track record of accomplishing such work. Nonetheless, the ISRP had questions about objectives and 

tasks, monitoring, and the relative effectiveness of infiltration galleries (found useful in other provinces). 

In response to the ISRP’s concerns, the proponents clarified objectives and researched costs of infiltration 

galleries compared to pump screens and provided useful results. Infiltration galleries were shown to be 4 

times the cost of the technologies proposed. The benefits of infiltration galleries were shown to be marginal 

or non-existent for these applications compared to pump screening, especially if fry migrate through gravel. 

Performance is not better than pump screens, and operation may be more complex than screens. The 

funding situation was clarified. The response might have mentioned WDFW’s long-term monitoring 

strategy development, which could provide monitoring support for evaluating the effectiveness of these 

improvements. Selection of the Methow River is in accord with the priority set by the NMFS 2000 BiOp. 

The relationship to the gravity diversion screening project (29028) was adequately explained. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

How many screens will be addressed during the assessment portion of this project? Is this project 

addressing a compliance and enforcement issue? If so, is this the responsibility of BPA (RPA language?)? 

NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 29012

Replace Rockview Diversion with Groundwater Withdrawal and Restore Instream Habitat

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Methow

FY03 Request: $141,954 Adjusted FY03 Budget: $91,954

5YR Estimate: $296,454 Adjusted 5YR Estimate: $226,454

Short Description: Remove Rockview diversion, transfer surface water withdrawal to groundwater 

withdrawal, and enhance associated stream channel and riparian habitat

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The response was helpful in clarifying the ISRP’s concerns. 

This project is to remove an existing water diversion and screen on the Methow River at the Big Valley 

Ranch Unit (WDFW’s Methow Wildlife Area) and restore the stream channel and associated side channel. 

It will take 3 years. The current screen and bypass do not meet established fish-protection criteria. The 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

68

project is located in the “gaining” reach of the Methow River downstream of the zone that becomes 

dewatered in the fall. WDFW has acquired the Big Valley Ranch, whose water source is the Rockview 

Diversion Dam. WDFW proposes to remove the dam and provide water for irrigating the wildlife area by 

sinking wells, which are funded separately. The irrigation ditch would be abandoned. The removal of 

structures (with offsite disposal) and restoration of the diversion/screen/bypass site to a functioning side 

channel will benefit several fish species that are endangered, threatened, or of concern (as listed in the 

proposal). There would be monitoring and evaluation of fish distribution/abundance, growth and survival 

before and after the work. 

This is a concise, well-written proposal, which generally meets the ISRP review criteria. The project is well 

justified by a thorough background discussion and specific references to the Subbasin Summary, FWP, 

BiOp, Upper Columbia Regional Technical Team and Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board. There 

would likely be benefits to fish, principally in the form of unrestricted movement and availability of sidechannel habitat for rearing and over wintering. There should also be benefits to wildlife, although these 

were not mentioned. The proposal discusses 21 related projects. The objectives and tasks are listed 

(however, no methods are presented other than standard words about standard environmental engineering). 

Existing support structure of WDFW will be used (general statements are given about what that consists 

of). Relevant references are given. Staff resumes are minimal, but acceptable. The proposal is persuasive 

that the work is valuable and timely. Nonetheless, the ISRP had questions about restoration methods, 

monitoring, and wildlife habitat. 

The response provided requested information on restoration methods, although the ISRP realizes that 

specification of the exact methods must await funding and enlistment of the consultants and the WDFW 

Environmental Restoration Engineer. The methods provided in the response are really goals for 

restoration, which are appropriate. The ISRP’s monitoring question was adequately answered. Use of the 

EPA EMAP approach is laudable. The ISRP agrees that use of HEP for evaluating benefits to wildlife 

habitat and identification of mitigation credits for BPA can logically come after funding is received and 

during the initial tasks. The response provided assurance that this analysis will be done. The planned 

approaches are appropriate.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Concept seems highly likely to succeed. The budget has been reduced by $40,000 to reflect eliminating the 

feasibility study portion of the proposal. Mark recapture techniques are likely to result in permitting 

difficulties and using snorkel surveys would be more appropriate and reduce costs. An additional $10,000 

has been removed from the budget to reflect a modified sampling procedure. NMFS has identified this as a 

BiOp project.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

69

ProjectID: 29018

Analyze ground-water and surface-water exchanges influencing anadromous salmonid habitat in the 

Methow River and its major tributaries

Sponsor: USGS

Subbasin: Methow

FY03 Request: $188,937

5YR Estimate: $247,649

Short Description: Identify the locations of ground-water and surface-water exchanges in the Methow, 

Twisp, and Chewuch Rivers, quantify the exchange rates and their seasonal patterns, and assess the 

influence of these exchanges on spring chinook habitat.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The response answered the ISRP’s questions adequately. 

This is a project to identify the locations of ground-water and surface-water exchanges in the Methow, 

Twisp, and Chewuch Rivers, to quantify the exchange rates and their seasonal patterns, and to assess the 

influence of these exchanges on fish habitat, especially for spring chinook salmon. Numerous other listed 

species also occur in the area. The study area is hydraulically complex, with reaches that alternately lose 

water to the ground and gain it again as the water traverses the river reaches. In some reaches the surface 

flows go dry in the fall and winter, thus affecting fish habitats and connectivity. The proposers are already 

doing similar research in the general vicinity (mainstem Methow and Twisp rivers), although that hydraulic 

work is not specifically tied to assessment of fish habitat. The proposal does not dwell on it, but the water 

flows in the Methow valley are intensely controversial, with irrigation withdrawals (both surface and 

groundwater) under high levels of scrutiny and current regulatory action. The main product would be maps 

of upwelling and downwelling, perennial flow, water temperatures in summer and winter (because these 

are dominated by the groundwater-surface water interchanges), and a preliminary assessment of potential 

sources of recharge for the shallow groundwater. These patterns of water exchange would be analyzed in 

the context of the seasonal life-history requirements of spring chinook salmon and other species. 

The proposal lays out an excellent scientific study, focused on primary data collection. No groundwater 

model is proposed. The study is well justified in terms of the technical aspects of surface-ground water 

exchanges and the objectives for fish and habitat laid out in the Methow Subbasin Summary. The relevant 

RPAs in the BiOp are cited. The proposal notes the similar ongoing USGS study and the network of stream 

gaging stations operated by USGS (some funded by BPA). Other fish protection work in the basin is cited 

collectively. Clear objectives are laid out, with defined tasks and discussion of methods. Facilities and 

equipment are available. Some appropriate scientific references are given, and good resumes are provided 

for key staff. The project is, of itself, of a monitoring nature and no follow-up is planned as part of this 

study. Understanding the complex hydraulics of this area will provide a good basis of understanding for 

taking actions to benefit fish. The initial proposal met most of the ISRP evaluation criteria. The work is of 

high priority for resolving immediate disputes in the area. The project offers to provide information (thus 

approach to management for salmon) on the effects of irrigation on stream flow in the Methow Basin. 

However, some questions were raised by the ISRP’s preliminary review. 

The response was thorough and answered the ISRP’s questions. The ISRP agrees with the selection of 

spring chinook salmon as the focal species/stock even though other species are present. This choice is 

logical when the amount of effort must be limited. Inclusion of other species/stocks by way of discussion of 

results will be acceptable. The logic for selection of study sites was clarified in the response. Although a 

fully probabilistic design is desirable for several reasons, attention must also be given to the natural reach 

divisions. The proposed design seems acceptable. Appropriate references are cited for salmon habitat 

suitability. The table of gages is a useful addition. The clarification of relationships of the current proposal 

to ongoing studies of diversion and recharge is useful for putting this proposal in context of other work. We 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

70

agree that the questions about salmon spawning in upwelling or downwelling regions and of scale for 

spawning are the crux of this study. Useful additional references are cited. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

80% indirect rate on the whole contract is excessive based on rates charged by other projects. NMFS has 

identified this project as a BiOp project. 

ProjectID: 29031

Out Year Operations and Maintenance Costs Required to Implement/Carry out MVID Rehabilitation 

Project

Sponsor: YIN

Subbasin: Methow

5YR Estimate: $260,000

Short Description: Proposal requests O & M support for MVID Rehabilitation Project (MVID_RP). 

Assured long-term funding for O&M costs is essential for MVID_RP completion and realization of its 

water conservation, in-stream flow and habitat benefits.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not Fundable. The response was not adequate. The proposal is incomplete because a final design is not 

available. This proposal may need to be submitted anew (and separate from the provincial review) now 

that a settlement has been reached with NMFS over MVID’s system. 

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments: 

A response is needed. This project is a logical extension of the existing project (199603491), rather than a 

new project. It is unclear whether the ongoing project will be implemented. The proposal is for out year 

costs, not FY 2003. It is anticipated that the pumping station will be constructed by 2004 as a product of the 

NWPPC mandated facilitation process with the Methow Valley Irrigation District and WDOE, BPA, the 

Yakama Nation, NMFS, WDFW, and the Colville Tribe. Pumping would replace a push-up dam in the 

Twisp River and reduce use of Methow River water as a result of a new distribution system. The present 

proposal is tied to installation and construction of the pumping station and distribution system in that the 

MVID will only agree to the change in their withdrawal system if the operating and maintenance costs are 

covered. Approval of this proposal would provide the guarantee that the MVID seeks for covering the 

O&M costs. 

Procedures for implementation monitoring need to be described in detail as part of the O&M project. 

Objectives 2 and 3 include long-term monitoring and evaluation methods that are not adequately described. 

The specific sample areas, methods, and sampling frequency and intensity (i.e., how many samples of what 

type where and when) need to be specified to ensure that statistical inferences can be drawn to the study 

areas. For example, it is not sufficient to say that the “The Hankin and Reeves (1988) methodology will be 

used to measure and record data.” 

What are the potential fish benefits from this project?

CBFWA Review Comments:

M&E not adequately described and may be funded from other sources if project goes forward. Funding 

may not be needed. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

71

ProjectID: 29038

Supplement Summer Steelhead Eightmile Creek/Chewuch River

Sponsor: MSRF

Subbasin: Methow

FY03 Request: $205,000

5YR Estimate: $225,000

Short Description: Develop a "natural" acclimation/rearing site on Eightmile Creek to supplement native 

fish stocks.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. This is a well-done proposal under the premise that supplementation is a good idea. Good 

background section. This proposal and project 29006 could provide some insight into the data supporting 

acclimation benefits versus direct release. The response adequately addresses the ISRP’s preliminary 

concerns with this issue. A plan is incorporated for testing the effectiveness of acclimation. 

The proposal is to enlarge and otherwise improve the acclimation ponds on the Mason property on 

Eightmile Creek to provide for summer steelhead acclimation. The source of fish would be the Wells Dam 

Hatchery. The existing site offers opportunities not available if the land had to be purchased. It is justified 

under the FWP by its naturalizing approach and also justified by Subbasin Summary objectives and 

strategies. This facility would provide a location for the recommended studies. The project advances 

NMFS’s natural rearing approaches to hatchery reform (BiOp). Twisp River acclimation ponds are being 

developed in the same manner (on a schedule ahead of this one). The staff appear to be well-qualified. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

Need more definitive data to be sure project will succeed. The hatchery programs in the Methow are 

currently undergoing evaluation and potentially restructuring. The PUD hatchery committee will be 

organizing and planning in the near future. The BOR hatchery program is considering moving towards 

supplementation, but decisions have not been made. This project may be ahead of those efforts and cannot 

be tied to specific planning documents at this time. This project may be a key element in the future, but at 

this time that cannot be determined.

ProjectID: 29006

Supplement Spring Chinook in Early Winters Creek

Sponsor: MSRF

Subbasin: Methow

FY03 Request: $231,000

5YR Estimate: $251,000

Short Description: Develop a "natural" acclimation/rearing site on Early Winters Creek to supplement 

native fish stocks.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. This proposal and 29038 should provide some insight into the data supporting acclimation 

benefits versus direct release, and the response adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns with this issue. 

See also review comments for project 29038. This is a good proposal that is a close analog to 29039 (ponds

on the Chewuch) except that the focus here is on spring chinook on Early Winters Creek. New ponds would 

be built on the same “natural” model.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

72

CBFWA Review Comments:

The hatchery programs in the Methow are currently undergoing evaluation and potentially restructuring. 

The PUD hatchery committee will be organizing and planning in the near future. The BOR hatchery 

program is considering moving towards supplementation, but decisions have not been made. This project 

may be ahead of those efforts and cannot be tied to specific planning documents at this time. This project 

may be a key element in the future, but at this time that cannot be determined. NMFS has identified this as 

a BiOp project.

OKANOGAN RIVER SUBBASIN

ProjectID: 29017

Prepare a Master Plan for Protecting and Restoring Salmon Habitat in Okanagan River

Sponsor: CCT/ONFC

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $59,000

5YR Estimate: $59,000

Short Description: Prepare a Master Plan to guide the protection and restoration of sockeye salmon habitat 

in the Canadian portion of Okanagan River.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable at high priority. The response was adequate and is now a much more realistic proposal and 

includes an appropriate timeframe. The proposal is to develop a plan for restoring portions of the Okanogan 

River that have been channelized or otherwise disturbed by human actions. This may involve setbacks of 

dykes, and/or work within a section of river that has been channelized to restore a more natural gradient 

and substrate. An example is given. Between Osoyoos and Vaseau Lake a series of concrete vertical drop 

structures was placed after channelization. In 2001 rock barriers were placed between two of the concrete 

structures, thereby creating a natural pool riffle complex, resulting in creation of spawning habitat that was 

used by sockeye. The proposal is to identify the most essential or potentially productive stream reaches 

within the Okanogan as a long-range action plan. This is a proposal for a one-year planning study only. 

Actual implementation would come later

ProjectID: 29033

Design and Conduct Monitoring and Evaluation Associated With Reestablishment of Okanogan Basin 

Natural Production

Sponsor: CCT

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $770,152 Adjusted FY03 Budget: $480,152

5YR Estimate: $2,688,802 Adjusted 5YR Estimate: $2,398,802

Short Description: The CCT are currently proposing and implementing a focused array of salmon and 

steelhead propagation initiatives in an effort to rebuild anadromous, naturally produced salmon runs and 

increase harvest opportunities. An M&E program is necessary.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable with high priority. The ISRP appreciates the effort put into providing an excellent response to our 

concerns. If funded, the project would serve as a model for other monitoring and evaluation projects in the 

Columbia Cascade Province and elsewhere. This project would provide a model for monitoring and 

evaluation in the Columbia Basin of Washington much as the monitoring and evaluation program in the 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

73

John Day Subbasin is evolving as a model in the Columbia Basin of Oregon. Both propose the use the 

EMAP sampling protocols as a basis for probabilistic sampling of the subbasins. 

The ISRP strongly recommends funding of this project. The response should be considered as an integral 

part of the initial proposal. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

Possible cost share for spring chinook through pacific salmon recovery funds. Objective 2-7, spring 

chinook monitoring, is unnecessary and Objective 7 monitoring is already covered by project# 29042. The 

budget has been reduced for 2003 by $290,000. Provides personnel funding for projects 29042, and 29050. 

NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 29021

Develop a Physical Processes Method (PPM) to Supplement Habitat Conditions Analysis and Subbasin 

Planning

Sponsor: Golder Associates Inc.

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $295,229

5YR Estimate: $1,238,702

Short Description: Develop a Physical Processes Method (PPM) to Supplement Habitat Conditions 

Analysis and Subbasin Planning

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not Fundable. The ISRP acknowledges the proponent’s response but remains unconvinced that the 

proposed project is an appropriate analysis and modeling procedure. 

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments: 

Do not fund. A response was not needed. The ISRP was not convinced that a highly sophisticated 

mathematical approach in combination with EDT is appropriate at this time. The sub models are available 

(and were listed in the proposal) for many of the processes they want to link. Users may be better off to 

leave them unlinked and use them as needed, based on the combined expertise of several disciplines 

working together. A big Physical Processes Model may gain little not available from individual models for 

discrete processes. 

Questions and concerns that arose in the course of review include: Where does EDT leaves off and PPM 

take over? What is the expected output of EDT in a specific real application and what is the expected 

output of PPM in the same illustration? Is EDT output input for PPM? A conceptual model of the system is 

needed. Without a conceptual model of the system, it is difficult to judge the qualifications of the 

proponents or the likelihood of success of the project.

The proposal should have contained a detailed monitoring and evaluation component. What real data will 

be collected and how will the project be evaluated (ground truthed)? How and when will one know that the 

project was a success or a failure? The proponents need to demonstrate support from management agencies 

in the Columbia Cascade Province and/or letters from the Council indicating need for augmentation of EDT 

in the subbasin planning effort. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

Although some development of the methodology is necessary, this project should not be funded until EDT 

activities are underway.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

74

ProjectID: 29001

Evaluation of 1872 Water Rights to Supplement Flows Between Basins

Sponsor: CCT

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $77,000 Adjusted FY03 Budget: $39,000

5YR Estimate: $315,000 Adjusted 5YR Estimate: $277,000

Short Description: Develop a known data base to prioritize available CCT 1872 water rights which may 

be transferred, (if abandoned, or purchased if available), and placed into trust to supplement instream flows, 

both within or transferred between sub-basins.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. This is a proposal to develop a GIS database of the water rights in the western portion of the 

Colville Reservation. The overall objective is to obtain water to restore stream flows and lower water 

temperatures in order to aid bull trout (threatened), steelhead (endangered) and spring chinook salmon 

(extirpated but habitat available) and summer chinook salmon (depressed). The project would identify and 

evaluate water available to supplement flows. The tribe owns some water rights and proposes to obtain 

more from this process. From this, it is proposed to examine the possibility of establishing a water trust and 

a brokerage to manage water use. Once the existing rights and evaluations are catalogued, actions can be 

taken to obtain or transfer the rights for benefit of fish. Transfer to adjacent basins may be considered. In 

addition to the cataloguing, the project would conduct field inventories to assess water withdrawals. Once 

the catalogue is completed and actions taken to acquire water for fish, the project plans to collect and 

analyze streamflow data to verify uses. 

The proposal is concise and generally well written. The project meets the ISRP evaluation criteria. A 

benefit to fish can be expected if water is actually obtained and/or transferred. There is careful and 

thorough justification in terms of the FWP, BiOp, the FCRPS Implementation Plan, and the Subbasin 

Summary. The project is a specific response to a call for innovative ideas for “water brokering.” Relevant 

existing projects in the basin are listed in a table. The planning and monitoring objectives and tasks are well 

presented. Specific information to be catalogued is listed along with some of the sources of information. 

The objectives and tasks do not include any implementation (actually obtaining water and making water 

transfers). There is a plan for monitoring following implementation, however. Key personnel are described 

in good resumes. Facilities for the work will be available from the CCT (which will cost share), except for 

minor office equipment and supplies.

The response was a helpful expansion of the proposal. The concerns of the ISRP are satisfied. The project 

is an innovative approach to obtaining instream flows, making use of the Tribes’ unique treaty rights. 

First, the response from the Office of Reservation Attorney was especially helpful in clarifying the 

significance of the year 1872 and logic behind the spatial extent of the proposal. Although this aspect had 

been somewhat confusing to reviewers, the ISRP did not question it, as it seemed outside our purview. 

Nonetheless, the history was interesting and helpful for clarifying the intent of the proposal. We suggest 

that similar material be used in the background sections of future proposals. 

The matter of “unclaimed” water rights was clarified sufficiently. As the ISRP understands from the 

response, the issue is not so much a matter of fully unclaimed rights but rights that were claimed by 

someone other than the Tribes, even though the Tribes had the legal right to claim them. In this world of 

claims generally exceeding the amount of water available, it seemed unlikely that any water would have 

been unclaimed (by somebody). The proposal seems to be a reassertion of water rights that the Tribes 

should have claimed based on the 1872 treaty. 

The timelines are appropriate for a project that is somewhat exploratory. The first year’s results will 

necessarily set the tone for the subsequent years, which will include as much implementation as can 

reasonably be initiated. Most implementation will be transfer of rights to the trust account.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

75

The implementation objectives are logical. It appears that physical movement of water between basins is 

unlikely to occur in the 3 years of this funding, but is not ruled out if opportune. 

The ISRP remains concerned that the monitoring does not extend from physical monitoring to biological 

monitoring (but this should not prevent funding). The water quality monitoring is fine. We are still not sure 

how the benefits to fish will be quantified, although we agree that improved flow, water quality, and 

instream habitat should lead to more fish. Regional approaches to establishing effectiveness for fish should 

be sought. 

There are overlaps with proposal 29032 that are discussed under that project. The responses clarified both 

differences and similarities between the projects. Consideration should be given to combining these 

proposals, with the 1872 water rights investigation perhaps being considered a task for proposal 29032.

CBFWA Review Comments:

This is an assessment project to determine possible water reallocation to instream flows and would reduce 

illegal taking of water rights. Stream flow data is being collected at several sites within the basin already; 

[thus, CBFWA] questions the need for additional data? The project sponsor reduced the budget by $38,000 

by transferring the water rights without using a subcontractor. The budget has been reduced to reflect this. 

This project has been identified as a potential BiOp project by NMFS.

ProjectID: 29032

Okanogan Basin Water Strategy Development and Pilot Projects

Sponsor: CCT

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $191,920 Adjusted FY03 Budget: $166,920

5YR Estimate: $1,260,600 Adjusted 5YR Estimate: $1,235,600

Short Description: At the local level, identify, formulate, and implement reasonable and feasible water 

strategies to increase instream flow within three selected pilot project tributaries of the Okanogan basin

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. This is a planning project to help correct the main habitat problems of the Okanogan basin: low 

flows and high temperatures. The project would work at the local level to identify, formulate, and 

implement reasonable and feasible water strategies to increase instream flow within three selected pilot 

project tributaries of the Okanogan basin. Water rights and uses would be inventoried in a database 

(updating existing databases), selection criteria for pilot projects would be developed and three pilot 

projects on tributaries would be selected where low instream flows make salmonid habitat problematic and 

where water use is significant and there are willing stakeholder participants. A multi-stakeholder forum 

would be established for each pilot project to obtain consensus strategies. Water conservation, land 

acquisition, water right acquisition for instream use, establishment of a formal water market, and a 

compensatory wetland mitigation bank are some of the strategies to be explored locally. An action plan 

would be developed for each pilot tributary. 

The proposal was well done, and the presentation answered the ISRP team’s questions about the 

subcontractor (Golder) and the source of the required stream flows (limiting factors analysis, a Washington 

state process). The project seems to meet the ISRP review criteria. The rationale for the work is well laid 

out on the basis of the BiOp, Subbasin Summary, Council’s FWP, the Salmon Recovery Board, and the 

CCT’s Integrated Resource Management Plan. There is a comprehensive listing of related projects and 

proposals. The objectives are not especially well written, but the intent is clear. Tasks are good. There is a 

worthy goal and needed planning (and follow-through with actions). Monitoring is not relevant to this 

proposal (until actions are to be implemented), although pre-implementation, baseline monitoring might be 

considered where pilot actions are likely.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

76

The response addressed the ISRP’s questions about relationships to proposal 29001, implementation, and 

the general issues related to water brokering from its review of proposal 25074. The ISRP still has 

uneasiness about the many overlaps with 29001 and the somewhat vague nature of this project, which may 

be symptomatic of work that is more social action than hard research, analysis, or implementation. The 

vagueness of the project may be necessary, however, to get meaningful dialogue on water conservation and 

use. However, the work proposed in 29001 might be lumped as a specific task in the broader planning 

effort of 29032. 

There are clear overlaps with proposal 29001, which the response details. There is a common goal, the 

projects will use coordinated management, use one database (developed in proposal 29001), share 

information and use coordinated effectiveness monitoring once implementation is undertaken. 

Implementation will differ, however. Proposal 29001 is specifically for the western Colville Reservation, 

whereas 29032 covers all of the Okanogan basin in the U.S., with respective differences in stakeholders. 

Proposal 29001 focuses on water rights related to the 1872 treaty and is specifically implemented by water 

acquisition/transfer to a water fund, whereas all strategies are open for 29032. The response offered 

thoughtful comments on water brokering raised by the ISRP in review of another project. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

Project sponsor has indicated that Objective 3c can be reduced by $25,000 for 2003. NMFS has identified 

this project as a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 29015

Thermal Imaging of the Okanogan and Wenatchee Watersheds

Sponsor: CCT

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $196,654 Adjusted FY03 Budget: $111,904

5YR Estimate: $261,654 Adjusted 5YR Estimate: $176,904

Short Description: Expedite the development of a water cleanup plan (TMDL) for the Okanogan to 

identify sources of pollution related to temperature, DO and pH; allocate maximum allowable pollution 

from various sources; and develop strategies to improve salmonids habitat.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. A response was not needed. The proposed work is a multifaceted project aimed at correcting the 

chronic high summer temperatures in waters of the Okanogan Subbasin. This project plans to use Forward 

Looking Infra-Red Technology (FLIR) to collect surface water temperature data remotely by helicopter 

from 175 miles of waterways in the Okanogan Subbasin, collect in situ temperature data simultaneously, 

incorporate this information into a river temperature model (QUAL2K), and use the data and model to 

develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for temperature, which include remedial measures. 

Temperature is a major impairment of the waters of the Okanogan subbasin for ESA-listed salmonid use in 

summer. The Washington Department of Ecology is mandated to assess 303(d) listed waters and develop 

remedial measures under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The IR measurements, in-situ measurements, and 

modeling are intended to identify and quantify the sources of heating in the river basin that contribute to 

overly warm water in summer, and suggest remedial measures. The FLIR will give a broad spatial 

snapshot, submersible recorders will give ground-truth information and temporal variations, GIS will 

handle the spatial data, modeling will assimilate the data for predictive purposes, and the TMDL analyses 

by WDOE will satisfy the CWA mandate and offer solutions. Broad public participation at the solution 

stage is intended. The CCT and WDOE have combined forces to provide an integrated project focusing on 

the Okanogan basin. The WDOE will, somewhat incidentally to this project, use the information for its 

TMDL activities for dissolved oxygen, pH, and pesticides. It is a 2-year project for BPA funding, but 

embodies an implementation plan by WDOE extending through FY 2005 and likely longer. 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

77

This is a well-prepared proposal (initially presented as two proposals now combined, which would have 

included the Wenatchee subbasin) that is directed at the ultimate goal of reducing summer steam 

temperatures in the Okanogan subbasin through the CWA process. The ISRP notes that its previous 

reviews of proposals to use the FLIR technique were not clearly directed at the ultimate goal and had a 

predominant technology focus; this proposal is clearly focused on the end result. Part of the proposal is a 

straightforward and well-described plan to use a modern remote-sensing detection technique for obtaining 

temperature data over broad spatial and narrow temporal ranges (wide-area snapshot). The monitoring 

technique is valuable for identifying locations where thermal conditions change spatially, either by 

warming or cooling. The presumption is stated that one snapshot will be indicative of spatially varying 

conditions over much of the warm season even though actual temperatures will vary from day to day. 

Standard color aerial photos (taken simultaneously) are used in conjunction with the IR imagery to identify 

the habitat features related to temperature conditions. Rather than just providing pictures and numerical 

temperatures, however, the proposal would go the next step and incorporate the IR data, the in-situ 

calibration temperatures, and other temperature data into a model of water temperatures along the length of 

the study reaches. The model would then be used for TMDL assessments by WDOE. The proposal notes 

that this sort of work is already being done in Oregon and parts of the Mid-Columbia region (e.g., the 

Wenatchee subbasin) funded by other agencies. 

The proposal meets the ISRP evaluation criteria. It makes good use of the Subbasin Summaries to justify 

the work, particularly the repeated statements that the waters are water quality (temperature) limited and 

listed under Clean Water Act 303(d). The work is specifically directed toward selection of remedial 

measures for such water quality exceedences, with a large benefit for fish. There are also good, specific 

references to the FWP, BiOp, the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board, and to CCT tribal goals. 

Related projects are listed specifically and discussed. There are clear objectives, tasks, methods and 

expected products for each phase of the work. The ISRP remains concerned that one IR overflight may not 

be sufficient to account for varying flows and other temporally varying factors, but acknowledges the high 

value of even one data set. The QUAL2K model might have been described in more detail, but it is a 

standard model used in water temperature analyses. Facilities and equipment are available from the 

contractors and used elsewhere. There is a good reference list accompanying the background and 

justification sections. Key personnel are clearly described in well-prepared resumes. The work is, of itself, 

of a monitoring nature with the measure of success being the follow-on monitoring that will be carried out 

by WDOE for the TMDL process (funded separately). There is excellent cost share, with $230,000 

anticipated ($200,000 from WDOE) adding to the overall 2-year proposal cost to BPA of $261,654. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

The WA SRFB funded $84,750 for 2003 for this project. The budget has been adjusted to reflect this. 

Should be EPA funded or at least cost shared, the project could utilize temperature data collected by OCD 

and CCT. Cold water inputs will be more difficult to detect in the summer than warm water inputs in the 

winter. Experimental design is questionable for providing usable information. Flight time cost could be 

reduced with better design. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 29056

Establish a Water Cleanup Plan (temperature TMDL) for the Okanogan subbasin

Sponsor: WA Department of Ecology

Subbasin: Okanogan

Combined with 29015.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

78

ProjectID: 29054

Stream Gaging Installation and Operations

Sponsor: Ecology

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $395,000 Adjusted FY03 Budget: $150,000

5YR Estimate: $593,000 Adjusted 5YR Estimate: $300,000

Short Description: Purchase and install eight continuos, real-time, telemetered stream flow gages, and six 

staff gages, at critical reaches and tributaries in each of the three subbasins.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. This is a valuable program for monitoring of stream flow to protect in-stream flows and 

compare actual flows to those flows and other target flows. Other important expected results are: support 

of EDT for subbasin planning, verify the availability and delivery of water purchased to assist conservation 

and recovery of ESA-listed salmonids stocks, determine flow-limiting reaches and tributaries to better 

target and prioritize habitat and flow restoration projects and monitor their effectiveness. These and other 

information from the program will provide significant benefit to fish and wildlife.

The response adequately described procedures for prioritizing locations for gaging stations. The response 

was adequate regarding monitoring and evaluation -- sampling, methods, frequency, etc. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project was funded under the 2001 Action Plan category. The budget has been modified to represent 

the expected O&M for FY03 and FY04 (3 0.5 FTEs). NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project. 

ProjectID: 29055

Columbia Cascade Water Rights Acquisition

Sponsor: Ecology

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $554,875 Adjusted FY03 Budget: $154,875

5YR Estimate: $1,624,625 Adjusted 5YR Estimate: $1,224,625

Short Description: Acquire senior water rights for instream flows in targeted small streams and tributaries 

to restore critically needed water for spawning, rearing and migration of listed and depressed species within 

the Wenatchee, Methow, Okanogan and Entiat subbasins.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. This is a proposal for the Washington Department of Ecology to participate in a 50-50 matching 

program with BPA to acquire senior water rights for instream flows in targeted small streams and 

tributaries to restore critically needed water for spawning, rearing and migration of listed and depressed 

species within the Wenatchee, Methow, Okanogan and Entiat subbasins. Federally listed and state 

depressed fish species are present and in need of restoration. All of these subbasins are over-appropriated, 

with water rights that precede the state’s instream flow and Trust Water Right programs. Thus, rights 

would have to be purchased or leased to obtain instream flows for fish. Streams would be targeted for the 

program with a prioritization scheme already in place (itemized in the proposal) under the Trust program 

(which has been implemented in other basins and in these basins to a limited extent). Streams would be 

those with a history of flow problems and listed species, rated by importance for life-history use, condition 

of habitat, number of diversions, size of stream, amount of water needed to make a difference, and 

opportunities for water right acquisitions. The state Trust would purchase or lease rights and hold them in 

WDOE’s name. 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

79

This is a well-prepared proposal. The work is justified on the basis of the Council’s Fish and Wildlife 

Program, the BiOp’s RPA 151, and the goals and objectives of each of the relevant Subbasin Summaries. 

The work is also justified on the basis of the Department’s own recent history of water right acquisitions 

(examples are provided that persuasively demonstrate the WDOE’s ability to carry out the program). There 

are established criteria for prioritizing acquisitions. Objectives, strategies and tasks are well laid out. There 

were several relevant references cited, and brief resumes were provided for staff. The essentially 50-50 cost 

sharing between WDOE and BPA is a positive impetus. 

The response adequately answered the ISRP’s questions. The response provided five types of watershed 

assessments that have been prepared for the tributaries of the Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, and Okanogan 

subbasins. These assessments should be sufficient to identify the water needs for use in guiding priorities 

for this project. The response described the criteria used for similar work in other subbasins, which the 

proponents cautiously view as successful (as new and a pilot program). There is good reason to believe 

that the proposed project could be successful using these criteria. The response described the development 

of a comprehensive monitoring strategy in Washington State, which would be the mechanism for long-term 

monitoring of the biological efficacy of the proposed water right acquisitions. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

M&E not adequately described. Is the water guaranteed to remain in streams? What is the criteria for 

purchasing rights? The priority of this project depends on the status of the development of the BPA water 

banking strategy. Subbasin planning will also help guide the implementation of this effort. Capital funds 

should be removed from the first year and focus should be applied to reviewing the database and 

prioritizing purchases for the out years. The budget has been reduced to reflect this. NMFS has identified 

this project as a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 199604200

Restore and Enhance Anadromous Fish Populations and Habitat in Salmon Creek

Sponsor: CCT

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $4,091,366 Adjusted FY03 Budget: $1,300,000

5YR Estimate: $11,170,836 Adjusted 5YR Estimate: $6,244,220

Short Description: Provide instream flows through on-farm water conservation & water leasing. Design a 

river pump station and an upgrade to the Salmon Lake Feeder Canal. Enhance channel habitat. Design 

channel restoration. Undertake NEPA. Raise funds for all of the above.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Do Not Fund. Potential benefits to the Salmon Creek steelhead and spring chinook population from this 

very expensive proposed project are minimal at best. Projects at other locations, such as Omak Creek and 

chinook and sockeye project in the upper Okanogan, offer greater potential benefits to fish for less 

investment. Benefits from this proposed project accrue mainly to the irrigation district. Further 

consideration of this proposed project should involve site visits by decision makers and consideration of 

significantly cheaper methods to place water back into the lower four miles of currently dewatered stream 

channel. 

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments: 

Do not fund. A response was not needed. According to the proposal, the Salmon Creek watershed is not 

large enough to provide the flows needed for irrigators and fish. The proposal is to build a pump station on 

the Okanogan River so that irrigators may exchange Salmon Creek water for Okanogan River water. 

Elsewhere, it is noted that at times water temperatures in the Okanogan River exceed 80 degrees F, which 

is unsuitable for salmon. This is not mentioned in this proposal.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

80

No significant benefit to fish is to be expected from this proposed project, which focuses on highly 

degraded habitat (dewatered, etc.) that would take an extensive effort and considerable resources to restore. 

The proposal is to restore steelhead and spring chinook salmon in Salmon Creek, which has an estimated 

15 miles of habitat between Conconully Reservoir and the mouth of the Creek that might produce an 

unspecified (in the proposal) number of adult salmon. Project sponsors have done rough predictive 

estimates that 150 steelhead, and 130 chinook might result from restoration of this stream reach. We noted 

the absence of water during the ISRP site visit in October 2001. The creek bed was dry below the fish 

ladder that is present at the irrigation diversion, located 4.3 miles above the mouth of Salmon Creek. The 

proposal states that 100% of the creek is diverted at that point. From the oral presentation we learned that 

the stream drops 550 feet in the lowermost 2.4 miles. Presently, an alluvial fan at the mouth does not allow 

passage of salmonids except at flood stage. An Entrix study found released flows alone would not restore 

the stream. A channel would have to be dug. Steelhead would be reintroduced from the Wells Hatchery 

brood. There are no remnant stocks of spring chinook, so they would need to be introduced from outside. 

There is no description of a monitoring and evaluation plan that ought to be undertaken.

A “Regional Technical Team” is reported to have identified the project as “very good” in terms of its 

technical merit (p. 11 of proposal). It is said to have the potential of being the primary spawning and 

rearing area for spring chinook in the Okanogan basin. We have to question this conclusion on the basis of 

what we have learned. If the statement is true, it implies that there is very little potential for spring chinook 

in the Okanogan Basin, and that therefore efforts would be better directed toward other stocks, such as 

summer/fall chinook, sockeye, or the recently reintroduced coho salmon that appear to be less habitat 

limited.

Although the ISRP review and recommendation is not predicated on costs, the Council and CBFWA should 

be aware of the costs compared to the potential benefits of this project. The proposal refers to a review of 

the Salmon Creek proposal by the Council’s Independent Economic Advisory Board in 2001. The IEAB is 

quoted, in part, on page 16 as complimenting the sponsors on the documentation provided with respect to 

costs, measurable goals in terms of effects on instream flows, and effects on water supplies for the 

irrigation district. However, the ISRP notes that there was no documentation of the anticipated numbers of 

salmon or steelhead that might result from this expenditure, a factor that is of primary concern to us. We 

also note that the IEAB did not reach any conclusions regarding the cost-effectiveness of the proposed 

project relative to other potential uses of the Fish and Wildlife Fund. The project is quite expensive ($7 

million request for FY01 and another $7 million for FY02-05), plus about $5 million more in cost sharing 

from the Washington State Legislature and $5 million from the US Congress. Annual operation and 

maintenance costs thereafter are estimated at about $500,000. The US Congressional funds have not been

secured at this point, and it was unclear in the proposal’s budget cost share information, whether the 

Washington State Legislature allocation had been secured. The Council and CBFWA should carefully 

consider if the proposed amounts (estimated at $17 to $20 million for a project speculated to provide a few 

hundred salmon and steelhead) would be better spent on projects with more potential benefit to fish and/or 

wildlife.

Comments: A response was provided to Council. We carefully reviewed it and find nothing that would 

change our assessment of this proposed project. The proponents complain that the proposal has previously 

received favorable reviews from the ISRP. We note that the site visit and oral presentations were extremely 

informative and helpful in arriving at a more realistic assessment of the prospects of success of this 

proposal.

CBFWA Review Comments:

An EIS is currently being developed that will guide the eventual design of this project. The current 

proposal addresses all possible alternatives. It is anticipated that through the 3-step process, the focus and 

scope of the project will be defined. Funding should be provided for ongoing activities until the EIS is 

completed. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

81

ProjectID: 29042

Selective Fish Collection and Harvesting Gear

Sponsor: CCT

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $231,000 Adjusted FY03 Budget: $166,000

5YR Estimate: $646,000 Adjusted 5YR Estimate: $581,000

Short Description: This project will develop, test and deploy several types of selective fishing gear to 

capture chinook, steelhead, and sockeye for the purposes of tribal harvest, brood stock collection, and 

research, monitoring, and evaluation.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable, as the proposal and response were not adequate. They were, in fact, proposals to develop a 

research proposal (plan), and cannot be reviewed. Appropriate technical details of the proposed project 

were absent.

CBFWA Review Comments:

The project sponsor has reduced Objective 1c by $35,000. Also, $30,000 could be eliminated from 

equipment costs by sharing equipment with other projects. This would make 2003 budget $166,000. The 

budget has been adjusted to reflect these changes. Potential exists for deferring other costs to 2004 or 

2005. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 200000100

Improvement of Anadromous Fish Habitat and Passage in Omak Creek

Sponsor: CCT

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $122,717

5YR Estimate: $542,717

Short Description: This project is the implementation of a plan to restore 40-mile of historical anadromous 

fish habitat (summer steelhead) by improving land management practices and conducting restoration 

activities that accelerate recovery of the Omak Creek watershed.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable with high priority. This is a continuation proposal for straightforward and conventional tributary 

habitat improvements, including culvert replacement, stream channel modification, cattle fencing, and road 

decommissioning in Omak Creek, a tributary stream of the Okanogan River in Okanogan County, 

Washington. The main benefit would be to summer steelhead (listed as endangered). The project was 

initiated by a 1995 Omak Creek Watershed Plan/Environmental Assessment prepared by the Natural 

Resource Conservation Service. The watershed analysis identified several limiting factors, which this 

project is seeking to correct. Work began under non-BPA funding through NRCS (PL 83-556); BPA 

funded work began in 2000. The principal focus of past work has been on removing two barriers, one a 

long culvert that required relocation of the creek channel and installation of a modern culvert, and the other 

an impassable debris pile (called Mission Falls) that remained after railroad construction in the 1920s. A 

poor job of stream realignment at the old culvert needs to be corrected. Based on recent watershed analyses, 

there is a new focus on road decommissioning, as the roads contribute large amounts of sediment to the 

stream. 

This is a good, straightforward proposal that meets the ISRP review criteria. There would be benefit to fish 

and wildlife from passage improvements and habitat rehabilitation, although the numbers of fish that used 

the stream historically and the numbers anticipated to return after rehabilitation are not clear. Conventional 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

82

restoration techniques are used. Results to date were given. There is good background and justification, 

with clear justification by citation of the FWP and BiOp; the watershed analysis is the most relevant 

justification. Objectives, tasks, and methods are provided and are appropriate. Monitoring is built into the 

work. There has been good progress to date (although past stream relocation work needs correction, based 

on monitoring). There is good cost share (about 1/3), and the relationships to other projects are adequately 

described. Facilities and equipment seem appropriate, and there were good staff resumes. There was a 

good reference list.

The response provided answers to the ISRP’s questions, to the extent that information is available to do so. 

Earlier watershed assessment estimated the capacity of the creek for steelhead at approximately 200 adults, 

roughly the same as projected for Salmon Creek. The comparison with Salmon Creek (Project # 

199604200) is useful, both in terms of miles of habitat and the habitat’s quality. The reasons for new 

attention to road decommissioning are clear, although the additional funding will need discussion by those 

responsible for budgets. Accomplishments missing from the proposal (an apparent typographical error in 

the proposal) were explained satisfactorily. The lessons from the channel relocation were interesting and 

should be useful for more than this project. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 29022

Omak Creek Water Temperature Model

Sponsor: CCT

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $245,000

5YR Estimate: $385,000

Short Description: Characterize water temperature regime in Omak Creek, quantify range of variability, 

and develop of numerical model to assess the effect of water and land use in the watershed on water 

temperature and to predict effectiveness of salmon recovery actions.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not Fundable. A response was not needed, because the poorly prepared proposal was not adequately 

justified scientifically or by regional planning. 

This is a proposal to develop a water temperature model for Omak Creek, a tributary of the Okanogan 

River. High water temperatures are a chronic problem for the Okanogan watershed in summer. This 

proposal seeks to determine the sources of heating (and cooling) in the landscape of the Omak and the 

lower Okanogan River basin so that remedial measures might be taken. The primary focus of the proposal 

is the development of a water temperature model, which could be run with various modifications of input 

parameters to test alternative temperature management strategies. Secondarily, the CCT would review 

management strategies for implementation in light of the model results. The project would be managed by 

the CCT but a contractor would develop the model. 

Although the motivation and concept are good, the proposal is poor. The background section was clearly 

written for another project, as the words do not relate to this work but to the acquisition of water rights. The 

project rationale is short and not well thought out. There are no references to statements of need in the 

FWP, BiOp, Subbasin Summary, or other plans. Preliminary work by the CCT seems to be the main driver 

(this is good, but it needs a regional context). There is a good table of related projects, but no attempt to 

define what the relationship might be to this work. Objectives and tasks are laid out well, however. No 

literature is cited with respect to the science of water temperature modeling, other than one reference to the 

FWP. Resumes for the CCT personnel are included. 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

83

A large drawback to the proposal is its lack of information on temperature modeling. The proposal gives no 

indication that there are existing stream temperature models that might be used for this work (e.g., 

Bartholow’s SSTEMP), although the presentation clarified that a model developed at Oregon State 

University would be used. The proposal suggested that a wholly new model will be developed (from 

conceptualization to computerization). There is also no indication in the proposal of who would do the 

modeling, except that this part of the work would be contracted. At the presentation it was indicated that 

Brown and Caldwell would do this work, but no qualifications were provided. Development of computer 

models for water temperature is a field of expertise not found everywhere, and the proposed modelers 

warrant scrutiny by the ISRP. No scientific references to water temperature models are given. On a positive 

note, the proposal goes through a logical set of steps (tasks) for the objective of developing a model and for 

using it for subsequent objectives to develop alternative management strategies for temperature in the 

Omak and potentially for the rest of the lower Okanogan mainstem and its tributaries. This good overall 

project structure fails, however, on the critical lack of information about the modeling. Without the key 

information about models and modeling, the proposal is not fundable. 

The project does not seem needed or justified for Omak Creek. The PI’s slides at the presentation showed 

that water temperatures reached the mid-20s C only once in the last decade. Habitat improvements 

associated with project 200000100 should have positive effects on sediment and temperature inputs, such 

that Omak Creek temperatures could be merely be monitored to determine if there are chronic or acute 

temperature problems. Steelhead may be able to accommodate short-term temperature exceedences by 

remaining in cooler water refuges and migrating into Omak Creek after temperature declines. This life 

history strategy is observed in steelhead returning to the John Day and Snake River subbasins.

The proposal seems to go beyond what could be concluded from temperature modeling alone. Objective 2 

reads “Develop and Prioritize Watershed Recovery Alternatives” and Task 2.c. reads “Simulate and Rank 

Watershed Recovery Alternatives.” It is hard for the ISRP to visualize how this kind of broad information 

might emerge from a simulation based on data that do not (and can not) include a range of values that 

would encompass “recovery.” Are the sponsors claiming that historical data do include such a range?

The proposal mentions that there is considerable loss of surface flow to the underlying alluvial aquifer. 

Does this mean the stream dewaters? Is the loss going to hyporheic flow that would affect water 

temperatures in an upwelling zone downstream (as seen in other locations)? 

The proposed exercise is very conceptual at this point in time, and the proposal needs to demonstrate a 

utility that cannot be addressed without this work. It is unclear why it is appropriate to extrapolate from a 

small creek like Omak Creek to a larger system like the Okanogan River? How would the larger 

application be tested for veracity? In summary, there are many concerns with this proposal that did not 

seem resolvable with a response by the proponents. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

84

ProjectID: 29023

Restoration/Protection of Kartar Creek In-stream, riparian, and Wetland Habitats

Sponsor: CCT

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $437,823 Adjusted FY03 Budget: $86,729

5YR Estimate: $1,591,035 Adjusted 5YR Estimate: $254,187

Short Description: Enhance natural reproduction, establishment of a sustainable fishery, provide a riparian 

corridor located between seasonal wildlife to partially mitigate for loss of anadromous fish and wildlife 

created by the building of Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph Dam

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority (Objective 1)

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. Kartar Creek has a dewatered section in the agricultural area above the lake. The goal of this 

project is to get water back in the creek. Perhaps the creek would need to be lined or detoured in the reach 

where it surrounds the agricultural lands. The proposal is primarily to assess options, followed by planning 

and implementation. They also plan wetlands creation and riparian fencing and planting.

The project focuses on Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT), a non-native species, which is currently planted in

Omak Lake and supports a trophy class recreational fishery that has strong local and regional support. The 

lake is highly alkaline and unlikely to support salmonids, other than alkaline-adapted stocks like Lahontan 

Cutthroat trout. The project seems logical with a laudable goal of attempting to convert a hatcherysupported recreational fishery to a self-supporting self-sustaining fishery. 

The proponents provided a good response to the ISRP including conducting field surveys for presence of 

redband trout. No redband trout were detected in the surveys. The response also provided good attempts at 

calculating numbers of fish that could be produced. The project would replace hatchery planting with 

natural reproduction. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

Columbia Cascade Province Budget Work Group supports funding Objective 1 with a phased approach and 

reduced costs. There are only two resident fish proposals in this province. This would convert a 

supplementation project funded by BPA into a natural production program. The budget has been adjusted 

to reflect the recommendation for High Priority.

ProjectID: 29045

Protect and Restore Salmon and Steelhead Habitat at the Similkameen/Okanogan River Confluence

Sponsor: Upper Columbia RFEG

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $239,700 Adjusted FY03 Budget: $0

5YR Estimate: $1,338,531 Adjusted 5YR Estimate: $1,098,831

Short Description: Design and implement measures to protect and restore flood plain processes for 12 

miles of spawning, rearing, and migratory habitat of the Okanogan/Similkameen rivers through an adaptive 

management process.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable with high priority. A response was not needed. This is an especially well prepared and thorough 

proposal. The proposal is to design and implement measures to protect and restore flood plain processes for 

12 miles of spawning, rearing, and migratory habitat supporting chinook, steelhead and sockeye salmon 

upstream of the confluence of the Similkameen and Okanogan rivers. The spawning area within the 12 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

85

miles is about 4.5 miles that support one of the largest concentrations of summer chinook in the watershed. 

Measures to be considered are dike modification, riprap removal, installation of in-stream structures, and 

riparian plantings. There has been high erosion caused by channel instability near hardened banks. Offchannel habitats have been lost. There is cost sharing from themselves and FWS (for permitting). Salmon 

Recovery Fund money is also sought for 2003 (if obtained, then BPA would be asked to fund outyears. 

Excellent public participation. This is for work in a high priority area.

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project received $239,700 for 2003 from the WA SRFB. Funding should be continued through BPA 

in 2004 and 2005. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 29008

Adult Passage Counting and Trapping at Zosel Dam

Sponsor: CCT

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $108,474

5YR Estimate: $623,474

Short Description: Conduct feasibility assessment of adult fish counting at Zosel Dam on the Okanogan 

River and evaluate preferred option. Design, install and evaluate adult trapping facilities at Zosel Dam.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The proposal is for a feasibility study to develop an ability to count adult anadromous fish as 

they pass Zosel Dam on their way to Lake Osoyoos and its tributaries. Lake Osoyoos is one of two lakes in 

the Columbia Basin that continue to support healthy populations of sockeye salmon. Previous efforts to 

count fish with video cameras as they transited the ladders were not entirely satisfactory. This proposal is to 

test newly developed technology for its use in this application. Recommended adjustments in the ladders 

arising from the previous experience will also be incorporated.

There is a particular need for more information on sockeye salmon survival rates and other life history 

characteristics. Their limited distribution and special life histories have combined to limit the opportunity 

for studies. The Okanogan run of sockeye exhibits some unusual behavior patterns in response to a 

temperature block that sometimes occurs at the mouth of the river. Unexplained losses of fish occur 

between Wells Dam, which is the last upstream counting station, and counts on the spawning grounds. 

This project is fundable on a technical basis and is an important project that merits high priority. The 

response adequately addressed the ISRP’s concerns with cost estimates and alternatives to blocking the 

spillbays.

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project would address a major data gap in adult counting. The ladder counts at Wells Dam as 

compared with the spawning survey counts vary by 100%. This project would fill a gap between those two 

locations. The first year of the study is a feasibility study to determine all possible options. 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

86

ProjectID: 200001300

Evaluate An Experimental Re-introduction of Sockeye Salmon into Skaha Lake

Sponsor: CCT

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $18,096

5YR Estimate: $18,096

Short Description: Evaluation of an experimental re-introduction of sockeye salmon into Skaha Lake in 

the Okanagan River Basin. Assess risks benefits, formulate hypotheses, develop an experimental design 

and analytical tools.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable with high priority. A response was not needed. This proposal describes the last step in a study 

designed to alleviate concerns about sockeye that might be reintroduced into the upper Okanogan, acting as 

carriers of disease. The first two years of the study looked at IHNV type 1, EIBS; and IPNV, and 

ceratomyxosis agent. The proposed work will complete the study looking at whirling disease. Like project 

29016, this project is high priority because information gained from the project will likely lead to payoffs 

in increased and measurable numbers of anadromous fishes. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

Important ongoing project, funding for only one year and small amount should make this a top priority.

ProjectID: 29016

Return of Okanagan Sockeye Salmon to their historic range.

Sponsor: CCT/ONFC

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $175,000 Adjusted FY03 Budget: $175,000

5YR Estimate: $1,509,000 Adjusted 5YR Estimate: $1,190,500

Short Description: Plan, engineer and construct fish passage past dams. Screen the irrigation intake 

associated with the first dam. Monitor increase in fish production.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fund. A response was not needed. This is a clear, straightforward measure that will certainly pay off in 

increased and measurable numbers of anadromous fishes, and deserves high priority. The proposal is to 

provide fish passage at McIntyre Dam, either by providing fish ladders or by removal of the dam. This 

would open up 11 km of potential spawning and rearing habitat in Vaseau Lake and Okanogan River. 

Approval of Canadian fisheries agencies is required, but appears to be imminent, with mechanisms in place 

for communication and agreements. The projects is directly related to #2000001300 The Evaluation of an 

Experimental Re-introduction of sockeye salmon into Skaha Lake, which will apparently satisfy some 

Canadian concerns about possible disease transmission by migrating fish. It is estimated that the project 

would lead to an increase of 18,000 sockeye in the Okanogan Basin population.

CBFWA Review Comments:

The proposed budget for this project covers several alternatives. A less expensive alternative may be 

chosen through a public process. The project sponsor has indicated that 2004 budget could range from 

$400,000 to $1,274,000 depending on results from 2003. The project sponsor has reduced the request for 

2004 by 75%.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

87

ProjectID: 29007

Okanogan Kelt Reconditioning

Sponsor: CCT

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $151,387

5YR Estimate: $662,663

Short Description: Recondition steelhead kelts in the Okanogan River system to allow repeat spawning in 

the wild and promote rebuilding of this Endangered ESU.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The reconditioning of kelts as a management tool has intuitive appeal, whose merits need to be 

assessed through an experimental program and a rigorous M&E subprogram. Getting more use out of a 

live adult steelhead seems like a reasonable objective, and one that has been tested successfully in the 

Yakima River and the Siletz River, Oregon. The evidence seems clear that there is little return spawning 

after downstream migration of kelts from the Okanogan system. This includes good “seed money” 

feasibility work under NMFS funding.

The response adequately addresses ISRP concerns and the project sponsor’s agreed to follow or implement 

most of the ISRP’s recommendations; however, they argued that the development of a local steelhead 

broodstock was needed to achieve their program objectives. Their proposed handling of the kelts and of

the M&E required to evaluate the program appears acceptable. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project should be well coordinated with the kelt reconditioning projects currently ongoing by 

CRITFC. NMFS has identified this as a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 29050

Phase I Okanogan River Spring Chinook Production

Sponsor: CCT

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $112,000

5YR Estimate: $1,960,000

Short Description: This project will reintroduce spring chinook into the Okanogan sub-basin to provide 

for tribal C&S and recreational fisheries. The program will also be used to collect information on the 

feasibility of reintroducing ESA-listed chinook in Phase II.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. The proposal and response lack sufficient technical detail on tasks and methods to allow 

review. The sponsors indicate that details are to be provided in the HGMP; however, the ISRP cannot 

support a recommendation for funding without reviewing the necessary technical details. This proposal is 

for the planning phase for a longer hatchery program to reintroduce spring Chinook to the Okanogan. The 

proposal is to use hatchery planted chinook (Carson stock from the complex of Leavenworth hatcheries) as 

a basis for a tribal fishery on returning adults. The juveniles would be transferred annually to the Ellesford 

acclimation facility (a pond owned by the Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation District), where they would be held 

over for winter rearing, acclimation, and release. All returning fish would either be harvested or retained as 

broodstock. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

Out year costs for objective 5 could be reduced in 2004-2007.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

88

ProjectID: 29040

OK-11 Develop and Propagate Local Okanogan River Summer/Fall Chinook

Sponsor: CCT

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $602,000 Adjusted FY03 Budget: $402,000

5YR Estimate: $1,496,000 Adjusted 5YR Estimate: $1,296,000

Short Description: Project will acclimate existing summer chinook production near historic habitat, 

increase production for the Okanogan and upper middle Columbia rivers, initiate production of latearriving fall chinook, and initiate a local chinook brood stock.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The proposal is for several actions aimed at increasing the abundance of summer/fall chinook in 

the Okanogan River and the mainstem Columbia River directly below Chief Joseph Dam. Several 

acclimation ponds are proposed to hold chinook for release in the Similkameen downstream from the 

existing facility, with the objective of utilizing what is claimed to be underseeded habitat. The proposal 

made a rather convincing argument that hatchery releases should be dispersed more widely, and describes 

potential sources of fish. The response addressed the ISRP issues in regard to the possibility that fish could 

be reared elsewhere and released at a number of points downstream of the Similkameen facility. In 

general, the response adequately addressed the ISRP questions and concerns, but the justification for focus 

on development of a local broodstock was weak.

CBFWA Review Comments:

The project sponsor has reduced Task 2.2 by $200,000 in 2003. Objective 3.3 or 4.3 can be delayed until 

2004 transferring $8,500 from 2003 to 2004. 

ProjectID: 29013

Acquire Land Adjacent to Chiliwist Creek and Develop Summer Chinook and Summer Steelhead 

Acclimation Pond

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $823,952 Adjusted FY03 Budget: $447,470

5YR Estimate: $1,179,517 Adjusted 5YR Estimate: $888,952

Short Description: Acquire 89 acres of apple orchard adjacent to Chiliwist Creek and develop an 

acclimation pond to imprint summer chinook and summer steelhead in order to improve return spawn 

distribution in the Okanogan Subbasin.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable, Medium Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable at medium priority. The response is adequate; however, the ISRP notes that supplementation of 

naturally reproducing salmon with hatchery production remains a controversial issue. The response 

includes an excellent literature review that describes acclimation pond benefits for chinook 

survival/homing. The ponds would also be used for steelhead, where the documented benefits are less 

clear. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project should be phased to purchase land in FY 03, perform planning, design and permitting in FY 04 

and in FY 05 begin construction of the ponds and funding operation. The budget has been adjusted to 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

89

represent this recommendation. Confirmation of the budget is needed from the project sponsor. Land has 

not been appraised so land costs are likely higher than fair market value.

ProjectID: 29051

Develop Local Okanogan River Steelhead Brood Stock

Sponsor: CCT

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $192,000 Adjusted FY03 Budget: $122,000

5YR Estimate: $1,630,000 Adjusted 5YR Estimate: $1,560,000

Short Description: Project will collect steelhead brood stock from local sources and transfer propagation 

activities from Wells Hatchery to Cassimer Bar Hatchery.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable, Low Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable with low priority. The proposed work appears justified within the logical framework of the 

response, which focuses more on ESA and Tribal Trust responsibilities than on biological-based arguments. 

The biological benefits of the proposed project are uncertain. 

The proposal is to replace dependence upon the Wells Dam Hatchery for broodstock used as a source for 

outplanting of steelhead into the Okanogan Basin. The WDFW has been working since 1996 to take fish 

for broodstock from local streams, with the thought that this might lead to an increase in genetic diversity 

of steelhead. The tribes propose moving the location of the steelhead production facilities from Wells Dam 

Hatchery to the tribe’s Cassimer Bar Hatchery. The proposal includes a measure to develop a conceptual 

design and cost estimates for modification of the Cassimer Bar Hatchery that will be required. This will 

lead to development of final design, and then to construction.

Ongoing projects in the upper Columbia Cascade province focusing on summer/fall chinook, sockeye, and 

coho appear to be having positive results and further investment in these projects appears warranted based 

on recent returns. Large-scale investment in steelhead projects in the Okanagon basin appears less 

warranted based on the greater uncertainty of positive outcomes. Unlike summer/fall chinook, sockeye, 

and coho, steelhead in the upper Okanagon basin appear to be habitat limited.

CBFWA Review Comments:

The master plan and hatchery design can be reduced by $70,000 in 2003. Out-year reduction may be 

possible. The final capital needs will be determined through the master planning process.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

90

ProjectID: 199609400

Increase sharp-tailed grouse and mule deer populations and enhance shrubsteppe/riparian habitats on the 

Scotch Creek Wildlife Area.

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $461,401 Adjusted FY03 Budget: $408,401

5YR Estimate: $2,083,081 Adjusted 5YR Estimate: $1,977,081

Short Description: Protect, increase, and maintain a viable sharp-tailed grouse population, increase mule 

deer use of the project site, and enhance shrub-steppe habitat for shrub-steppe obligate species.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The response adequately addressed the ISRP’s concerns with the data collection protocols 

including site selection, adequacy of data to detect trends, sharp-tailed grouse lek monitoring, and nesting 

and brood surveys. The ISRP appreciates the effort expended in responding to our questions and concerns. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project protects and enhances critical sharp-tailed grouse/shrub steppe habitat and is a significant 

component of WDFW's statewide sharp-tailed grouse recovery strategy. The project sponsor has removed 

$53,000 from the Construction and Implementation phase of the project for 2003 and 2004 by delaying 

equipment purchases until 2005. The budget has been modified to reflect those changes.

ProjectID: 29005

Validate Occurrence and Assess Abundance of Wildlife Species

Sponsor: CTCR

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $194,136

5YR Estimate: $534,908

Short Description: Verify, monitor, and inventory wildlife species presence and abundance in this project 

area as indicated by the species list cited in "Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in WA/OR" (Johnson, D and 

Thomas A. O'Neil, 2000).

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified - see comments)

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable (Qualified)

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The response provided additional detail over that provided by the original proposal, however 

additional detail on the inventory and monitoring protocols will be needed before funding and contracting 

are completed. 

The ISRP agrees that the Inventory and Monitoring protocols utilized and being developed by the National 

Park Service can serve as a valuable guide for inventory and monitoring of wildlife on large areas in the 

Columbia Basin. To receive unconditional recommendation for funding, the specific sample areas, 

methods (data collection protocols), and sampling frequency and intensity (i.e., how many samples of what 

type where and when) need to be specified. Details must be given or adequate references to published 

literature given for not only site selection procedures, but for data collection procedures. 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

91

ProjectID: 29019

Characterize and Assess Wildlife-Habitat Types and Structural Conditions for Okanogan sub-basin

Sponsor: NHI, CCT

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $27,907

5YR Estimate: $27,907

Short Description: Fine-scale wildlife habitat assessment for the Okanogan sub-basin will produce critical 

baseline data for planning and monitoring efforts that is consistent within the NWPPC Framework wildlifehabitat relationships process.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable as a pilot study for the use of NHI in this region. A response was not needed. The proposal and 

presentation make a good case that this resolution mapping would be useful to regional wildlife managers 

who would actually make use of the map. The budget is either very reasonable or incomplete.

The proponents have previously demonstrated the ability to produce high-quality maps at the Columbia 

Basin level. If successful, the proposed maps will represent a major step forward in the detail of 

information available to managers as baselines for ecological assessments. The improvement in mapping 

scale (down to 4 Hectare MMU from the Current 100 Hectare) would be particularly useful.

Questions or clarifications that need to be addressed during contracting are as follows: 

The relationship of this proposal to similar ones in the Mountain Snake, Blue Mountain, Columbia 

Cascade, and other provinces should be given. The ISRP has reviewed versions of these proposals in each 

province. 

A detailed monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plans should be included in the ‘Proposal objectives, tasks 

and methods’ section. How will one know that this project was a success? M&E methods for the accuracy 

and precision of classification of 4 ha units should be given in more detail. How is the accuracy of 75% 

guaranteed for a mapped class and how is an overall map accuracy of 80% guaranteed? Details for ground 

truthing the maps with field visits should be given. 

How good is the correlation between environment conditions and animal use? Describe methods for 

presence absence on the ground surveys and comparison with mapped habitats. The specific sample areas, 

methods, and sampling frequency and intensity (i.e., how many samples of what type where and when) 

need to be specified. The response should include plans for repeating the mapping effort to account for 

succession and other habitat changes. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

In-house data base refinement at very reasonable costs.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

92

ProjectID: 29029

Perform Range Forage Inventory for Large Ungulates

Sponsor: CTCR

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $159,704

5YR Estimate: $462,252

Short Description: Grazing resource inventory is necessary to enable identification and location of grazing 

lands, forage availability and quality, for the management of large ungulates including elk, mule and white 

tail deer, moose and big horn sheep.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified - see comments)

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable (Qualified)

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The proponents made a good faith effort to address the ISRP’s concerns on site selection 

procedures. However, the ISRP has no confidence in use of index sites for long term environmental 

monitoring, regardless of procedures long used by the NRCS. If funded, then during the contracting 

period, the actual procedure for selection of the sample units (one per 200 acres) should be described and 

reviewed by the ISRP. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

Historic data is 60 years old and a new inventory is badly needed.

ProjectID: 29004

Control Okanogan Weeds -Invasive Species Project

Sponsor: CTCR

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $299,933

5YR Estimate: $1,484,025

Short Description: Integrated program to control invasive noxious weeds for the benefit of wildlife and 

their associated ecosystems through the use of biologic insect agents, education, outreach, and habitat 

management.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. The proponents did not respond adequately to the questions and concerns raised by the ISRP 

in the Preliminary Review.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments: 

A response is needed. The ISRP suggests that the objectives of fencing, education, and communication, 

and research be separated in the proposal with clear indications of associated tasks, benefits, and costs.

Additional benefits of controlling livestock access via fencing, if any, should be included? Describe the full 

extent of fencing with maps. Are only the weed patches fenced? Is there an expected increase in forage for 

wildlife other than control of spread of weeds? Is aquatic habitat protected by the fencing? What are the 

benefits to fish, if any? 

Is a HEP analysis planned to account for improvements in wildlife habitat to provide credit toward BPA’s 

responsibility to mitigate for loss of wildlife habitat? 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

93

The experimental design, layout of plots on a map, and proposed statistical analysis should be given for the 

proposed research on effects of release of lesser knapweed flower weevil for control of knapweed. Is this 

research part of or related to a long-term monitoring and evaluation program?

This project needs to include or reference a long-term monitoring and evaluation program for distribution 

and abundance of noxious weeds and wildlife habitat in general. If the M&E is being conducted in another 

project then a complete discussion of how that project provides appropriate M&E for this proposal needs to 

be included. Baseline data from ongoing M&E, if any, should be given.

The proponents are referred to the ISRP Review of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes’ Habitat 

Acquisition and Restoration Plan (19910600) (www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2001-4addendum.htm). 

The project was reviewed in the Mountain Columbia Province to determine whether it provided 

scientifically sound criteria and protocol to prioritize habitat acquisitions. The ISRP found that document 

described a good plan for habitat acquisition and restoration of wildlife habitat in mitigation for lost aquatic 

and riparian habitat due to the Kerr Project No. 5 located on the Flathead River and could serve as a useful 

model to other habitat and restoration proposals with some minor revision of the monitoring and evaluation 

(M&E) component of the plan. The M&E component has subsequently been reviewed and approved 

subject to minor modifications in ISRP report (www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2001-4AlbeniFalls.pdf). 

The proponents are also referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific 

comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and 

Evaluation.

ProjectID: 29003

Acquire Property for Partial Wildlife mitigation

Sponsor: CTCR

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $1,500,000 Adjusted FY03 Budget: $1,000,000

5YR Estimate: $7,500,000 Adjusted 5YR Estimate: $7,000,000

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.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Partially Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable for establishment of options to purchase properties only. The respondents did not reference or 

provide adequate detailed plans for monitoring and evaluation of results of this project. Monitoring should 

include establishment of baseline conditions at the time of purchase. Detailed plans for M&E should be 

developed and reviewed by the ISRP before purchase of properties.

The ISRP believes that it is not appropriate to recommend funding for projects when one of the four 

primary ISRP review criteria is that we review and recommend only projects that “have provisions for 

monitoring and evaluation of results.”

CBFWA Review Comments:

CBFWAs ranking of this project focuses on the Tumwater Basin parcels that the CCT is currently pursuing. 

The project sponsor has reduced the budget by $500,000 in 2003.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

94

ProjectID: 29035

Okanogan River Riparian and Upland Fish and Wildlife Habitat Acquisition

Sponsor: SP

Subbasin: Okanogan

FY03 Request: $2,957,000

5YR Estimate: $6,070,000

Short Description: Protect and restore existing high quality riparian, floodplain, and adjacent upland from 

development, and preserve important spawning, rearing and holding habitat in the Okanogan River through 

property acquisition and development of long term research.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified - see comments)

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable, High Priority (Qualified)

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable at high priority for establishment of options to purchase the property. This property has very high 

potential for long-term value for benefits to fish and wildlife species. The property contains a significant 

proportion of mainstem spawning chinook habitats in one of the last roadless riparian sections of the 

mainstem of the Okanogan River. The proponents provided an excellent response to ISRP concerns and 

questions regarding prioritization within watershed assessment and protection of conservation values. 

However, they did not reference or provide adequate detailed plans for monitoring and evaluation of results 

of the project including establishment of baseline conditions at the time of purchase. Detailed plans for 

M&E should be developed and reviewed by the ISRP before purchase of the property. Also a binding 

agreement with a public land trust that would establish a conservation easement in perpetuity should be in 

place before purchase.

The ISRP believes that it is not appropriate to recommend unconditional funding for projects when one of 

the four primary ISRP review criteria is that we review and recommend only projects that “have provisions 

for monitoring and evaluation of results.”

CBFWA Review Comments:

Portions of this proposal have been submitted through the Washington SRFB process. NMFS has 

identified this project as a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 29011

Sharp-tailed Grouse and Mule Deer Habitat Restoration and Enhancement on Sinlahekin Wildlife Area

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Okanogan

Withdrawn.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

95

PART III. Lower Columbia and Estuary Provinces

Proposal comments are presented in the following groups below: lamprey, bull trout, Abernathy Fish Lab, 

Chinook and Grays River (chum), Chum, Estuary and Plume, Habitat Restoration, Cowlitz, and other 

Lower Columbia. Within each group, proposals are arranged in the order they were presented at the ISRP 

site visit workshop.

Lamprey Proposals

ProjectID: 200001400

Evaluate habitat use and population dynamics of lampreys in Cedar Creek

Sponsor: USFWS

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Lewis

FY03 Request: $197,742

5YR Estimate: $1,092,650

Short Description: With emphasis on Pacific lampreys, identify and quantitatively evaluate populations of 

lampreys and their habitats in a stream below Bonneville Dam.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The response addressed, in limited ways due to information limitations, the issues raised by the 

ISRP. These issues included tests of the assumptions underlying the adult mark-recapture and assessment 

of habitat preference as well as habitat use, and details of the sampling protocol for ammocetes (sample site 

selection and larval sampling methods). Reviewers agree that the sampling protocols are appropriate for the 

situation. Given the limited investment in lamprey, the ISRP recommends continuing to fund this 

investigation.

ProjectID: 31003

Distribution and life history characteristics of lampreys in tributaries of the lower Columbia River Basin

Sponsor: USFWS

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Columbia Lower

FY03 Request: $173,281

5YR Estimate: $1,626,205

Short Description: With emphasis on Pacific lampreys, identify tributaries containing lamprey, and 

quantitatively evaluate populations and their habitats in two streams below Bonneville Dam

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, Low Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable at low priority. The proposal doesn’t provide a compelling argument for the need for this 

research; it doesn’t indicate how this research would provide additional understanding or value over the 

work at Cedar Creek. In the response the investigators took notice of ISRP’s concern about the generality 

of surveys versus a few site specific studies but still intended to focus only on a couple of sites after the 

first year; rather than to use random sampling to examine the distribution of lamprey as a basis for 

inferences. Some useful information would be gathered by the proposed research, but the ISRP doubts 

much more would be learned than at the Cedar Creek study; consequently, reviewers place a low priority 

on this study design.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

96

BULL TROUT PROPOSALS

ProjectID: 31027

Movements and Survival of Juvenile and Adult Bull Trout

Sponsor: USFWS

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Lewis

FY03 Request: $207,585

5YR Estimate: $814,144

Short Description: Juvenile and adult bull trout in and near Rush Creek will be tagged with 23 mm PIT 

tags. Using a stationary PIT tag antenna, juvenile survival, migration timing and population numbers will 

be estimated for in basin modeling efforts.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable, agree with CBFWA recommendation of high priority. This research is well designed and should 

provide useful information on bull trout migration and life history diversity in the Lower Columbia. The 

response addresses the full range of reviewer questions, including an assessment of habitat characteristics 

and location. The research will use novel technique to quantify winter survival, migratory success of adults, 

and relative abundance of resident and migratory life histories. Instream surveys coupled with GPS sensing 

will efficiently document reach scale and channel unit scale, and should detect seasonal changes in habitat 

use and determine if resident and migratory life history forms use different habitats.

CBFWA Review Comments:

USFWS has identified that this project is a BiOp project. CBFWA believes this is a potentially useful and 

interesting research project; however, it is unclear how results will be used in the management of bull trout. 

It is also unclear why this work should be funded by BPA. Reviewers question the size of PIT tags relative 

to fish size.

ProjectID: 199405300

Middle Fork Willamette River Bull Trout Re-introduction and Basinwide Monitoring

Sponsor: ODFW

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Willamette

FY03 Request: $159,400

5YR Estimate: $908,400

Short Description: Evaluate protocols for the re-introduction of bull trout into historic habitats in the 

upper Willamette River subbasin, and employ methods to monitor and evaluate the status and trends of bull 

trout populations in the Lower Columbia Province.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable on a technical basis. The investigators explain well the constraints on sampling but do not 

provide adequate detail of their experimental/statistical design, an indication of the power they would have 

to detect differences between strategies given their constraints on numbers of fish and sites. If properly 

designed this work could provide useful information concerning strategies for reintroduction of bull trout 

and status and trends of bull trout in the Upper Willamette basin. In a revised proposal the ISRP suggests 

that it would be valuable to use excised fin tissues as a basis for a parentage analysis of the subject bull 

trout, for observing whether survival is random with respect to families, i.e. for observing the effective 

population size of bull trout.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

97

CBFWA Review Comments:

USFWS has identified that this project is a BiOp project. The proposed project will investigate strategies 

for reintroduction of bull trout and status and trends of bull trout in the Upper Willamette basin; however, 

CBFWA believes that the proposed experimental design and data analysis need to be explained in greater 

detail. Specifically, project sponsors should provide justification for number of release sites chosen and 

numbers and timing of fish transferred and released. In addition, CBFWA recommends that details of the 

methods and statistical analyses for Objective 3 need to be defined in greater detail.

ABERNATHY FISH LAB PROPOSALS

ProjectID: 30003

Evaluation of Two Captive Rearing Methods for Assisting with Recovery of Naturally Spawning 

Populations of Steelhead and Coho Salmon

Sponsor: USFWS

Province: Columbia Estuary

Subbasin: Elochoman

FY03 Request: $446,101

5YR Estimate: $1,939,251

Short Description: Test and evaluate two hatchery reform methodologies; Assess natural reproductive 

success of returning hatchery-origin adults; Establish Abernathy, Germany, and Mill creeks as a Tier 3 

"monitoring and evaluation" site for anadromous salmonids.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable; a response was not needed. Proponents propose to rigorously examine the effects of hatchery 

rearing on fitness - a continuing, plaguing uncertainty in the basin’s artificial production programs. The 

proposed research would directly estimate fitness of supplemented fish and would test efficacy of two 

supplementation strategies.

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project also has applications upstream of Bonneville and could be considered in the Mainstem and 

Systemwide Province if not funded here. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 30008

Instream evaluation of populations, migration timing, individual adult return rates, and wild-hatchery 

interactions of 3 naturally produced salmonids

Sponsor: USFWS

Province: Columbia Estuary

Subbasin: Elochoman

FY03 Request: $238,740

5YR Estimate: $1,296,140

Short Description: Evaluate distribution and abundance of juvenile and adult coho salmon, steelhead trout, 

and cutthroat trout in Abernathy Creek using new PIT tag techniques.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable, Medium Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable at medium priority. Without knowledge of proposal 30003 this proposal appears unfocused; it 

makes sense only as part of an assessment of supplementation of steelhead by a hatchery population. The 

objectives of understanding salmonid stocks in Abernathy Creek and developing and understanding the PIT 

tag methods are best justified in support of that assessment. The study design is competent and the study 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

98

site seems well suited to the research. The ISRP remain unconvinced, however, that habitat preference can 

be assessed by simply watching natural fish, and that the interaction of hatchery and wild fish can be 

observed by simply mapping the distribution of wild fish before hatchery fish are released. There is not 

enough information to give reviewers confidence that the project will produce valuable results. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project may also be considered in the Mainstem and Systemwide Province. Some portions may be 

funded under that province. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 30012

Compare Bacterial Fish Pathogen Populations in Hatchery Water and in Adjacent Creek Water and 

Evaluate Possible Disease Transfer Between Them.

Sponsor: USFWS

Province: Columbia Estuary

Subbasin: Elochoman

FY03 Request: $71,678

5YR Estimate: $106,165

Short Description: Determine the presence of bacterial fish pathogens within a hatchery water system and 

in the waters of an adjacent creek used as part of the hatchery water supply. Determine the potential for 

pathogen transfer between the two water systems.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. The proposal is inadequate for technical review. It is unclear how samples of Abernathy 

creek will be taken with respect to seasonal fluctuations in abundance of fish and seasonal fluctuations of 

the physical environment. The statistical methods are not adequately explained. The qualifications of the 

investigator are not described. A thorough proposal for similar work has been made in the Columbia 

Cascade subbasin.

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project may be better evaluated in the Mainstem and Systemwide Province.

ProjectID: 30013

Role of Bacteria as Indicator Organisms for Watershed Assessment and in Determining Fish Pathogen 

Relationships with Fauna of Abernathy Creek

Sponsor: USFWS

Province: Columbia Estuary

Subbasin: Elochoman

FY03 Request: $71,100

5YR Estimate: $189,690

Short Description: The purpose of this project is to develop techniques to assess watershed health and fish 

health using bacteria as system indicator organisms.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified - see comments)

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable (Qualified)

ISRP Final Review Comments: Fundable

The research is interesting and the question is important in regard to non-point source pollution, but the 

proposal has a strong personal development aspect to its benefits. The ISRP had a number of comments 

that the author did try to address and did seek the statistical advice suggested. Our principal concern was 

that the PI did not have the statistical background required by this investigation but the PI has sought 

consultation on this issue. A requirement of funding for this project should be that the PI is required to 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

99

submit a completed experimental design developed with full collaboration of a statistician and agreed with 

by more senior USFWS staff. A design developed in advance of the sampling will assist in interpretation of 

results and will likely reveal sampling issues before the project begins. The ISRP acknowledges that the 

idea being examined in this proposal is both different and challenging but we are also recommending 

funding as a developmental step for a young researcher who impressed the review committee with his 

presentations and abilities to answer our questions.

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project should be considered under the innovative category (or in the Mainstem and Systemwide 

Province).

CHINOOK AND GRAYS RIVER (CHUM) PROPOSALS

ProjectID: 30006

Effectiveness monitoring of the Chinook River estuary restoration project.

Sponsor: Sea Resources

Province and Subbasin: Columbia Estuary

FY03 Request: $124,804

5YR Estimate: $444,804

Short Description: This is a project to monitor and evaluate changes in habitat attributes and juvenile 

salmonid use before and after the Chinook River estuary restoration project.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The sponsors propose to monitor changes in water quality, salmon abundance, and life history 

diversity following restoration efforts in the Chinook River estuary. The proposed work is one of the first 

major efforts to evaluate the response of salmonid fishes to estuary restoration in the lower Columbia and 

as such it is an important proposal. A major value of this work is that the tidegate will be removed, possibly 

providing greater access for salmonids to the estuary than if the tidegate were left in place. The potential for 

this proposal is strongly dependent upon how much of the road causeway is removed. What might really 

benefit this project is the provision of engineering support, possibly even more than the funding.

The response indicates a firm level of funding for basic tidegate removal and describes an approach to 

design of tidegate removal and modification of channel width that is a practical compromise between 

available budget, ecological goals, and flood protection. The response indicates that proposers are well 

aware of the tradeoffs associated with each level of budget and the project has excellent support from 

partners.

This proposal is similar to 30004 in that it would benefit from more analytical advice on sampling and 

study design. Explanations of the reference site and the sample design are still too brief. For example, will 

the scale analysis as described in the response produce the desired information? 

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project should be coordinated with other estuary assessment projects. The budget should be reviewed 

in line with other assessments funded in the estuary. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

100

ProjectID: 30005

Grays River Watershed and Biological Assessment

Sponsor: LCFRB; PSMFC; PNNL

Province: Columbia Estuary

Subbasin: Grays

FY03 Request: $474,734

5YR Estimate: $1,165,430

Short Description: Conduct a watershed and biological assessment of the Grays River watershed to 

protect and restore chum spawning habitat

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Partially Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part to do the watershed assessment including hydrological, geomorphological, habitat, and 

fish elements. The objectives, tasks and methods describe a systematic approach to the identification of 

limits and characteristics of spawning habitat. The response is adequate in its description of regional 

actions taken to protect chum and the issue of sedimentation in the lower river, but remains tentative and 

conditional about the sequence of watershed assessments and the possible future actions that could be taken 

to stabilize the riparian zone, restore habitat and protect chum. The response emphasizes the need for a 

baseline assessment to understand the nature of the system’s instability. The assessment should focus on 

the upstream processes that would indicate whether the channel instability will continue or possibly 

stabilize. 

The proposal fits well into regional programs and is well connected to other projects. After the assessment 

is completed a prioritized list of actions should be constructed for integration into other projects.

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project scope and budget should be considered along with all the chum salmon projects. NMFS has 

identified this project as a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 31001

Artificial production facilities improvements to support Lower Columbia chum salmon reintroduction into 

the Chinook River

Sponsor: Sea Resources

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Columbia Estuary

FY03 Request: $41,865

5YR Estimate: $41,865

Short Description: Improve Sea Resources hatchery facilities to enable staff to perform tasks in support of 

the reintroduction of Lower Columbia chum salmon into the Chinook River.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified - see comments)

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable (Qualified)

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable after a strategic plan for chum restoration in the lower river is established. There are too many 

unanswered questions about this potentially useful and important project. It should be proposed again after 

a strategic interagency plan for restoration of chum in the lower River is developed and it can be shown 

how this Chinook River project will contribute, how this effort will be monitored and evaluated, how this 

effort could be modified in response to the plan and to the ongoing monitoring and evaluation. The project 

plan should indicate when or under what conditions production at Chinook Hatchery would be terminated 

and how returns would be apportioned between natural spawning and the hatchery.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

101

CBFWA Review Comments:

Funding this project should be based on the results of Project 30005. NMFS has identified that this project 

is a BiOp project.

CHUM PROPOSALS

ProjectID: 200105300

Re-introduction of Lower Columbia River Chum Salmon into Duncan Creek

Sponsor: PSMFC, WDFW

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Columbia Lower

FY03 Request: $381,671

5YR Estimate: $1,632,940

Short Description: Monitor and evaluate the success of the recently restored spawning channels for chum 

salmon at Duncan Creek. If necessary, jumpstart the population by collecting brood stock from adjacent 

populations.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The project promises to benefit chum salmon, coho salmon, and sea-run cutthroat in the lower 

Columbia River through an innovative approach to natural restoration of salmonids. Reviewers caution 

that chum salmon should not be stocked until WDFW develops a plan for establishment of a wild chum 

salmon population in the context of a watershed assessment, and until a clearly defined protocol for 

monitoring spawning activity is in place.

CBFWA Review Comments:

NMFS has identified that this project is a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 200001200

Evaluate Factors Limiting the Columbia River Gorge Chum Salmon Populations

Sponsor: USFWS

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Columbia Lower

FY03 Request: $255,212

5YR Estimate: $1,410,207

Short Description: Evaluate factors limiting chum salmon production in Hardy Creek, Hamilton Springs, 

and Columbia River side-channel.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. A response was not needed. The proposal is sound and well organized with logical objectives, 

and should generate information useful for protecting these remnant chum salmon in the Lower Columbia. 

The viability of these populations may be affected by movements among them, lending importance to the 

proposed study of movements. A summary of censuses of adults is given but no summary of fry 

production. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

NMFS has identified that this project is a BiOp project.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

102

ProjectID: 31006

Protect Wood's Landing Chum Spawning Site

Sponsor: City of Vancouver

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Columbia Lower

FY03 Request (1YR only): $1,352,360 (adjusted $765,810)

Short Description: Through acquisition of property and easements on 12 acres and 1000 feet of shoreline 

the project will protect a significant chum spawning site on the mainstem of the Columbia and will also 

restore the lower 350 feet of the adjacent creek.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable (Qualified - see comments)

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable (Qualified)

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not Fundable technically, but based on the conservation issues associated with chum restoration it may be a 

necessary project. The proposal does not adequately demonstrate the benefits of the proposed easements; 

that these easements would protect habitat and that the habitat is at risk, i.e. that acquisition of easements 

over these 12 acres would solve the problem of human interference from dogs, boats, runoff from 

impervious surfaces from neighboring sites and that the chum population is threatened by potential 

development. Preliminary study of the relationship of this site to chum salmon habitat, e.g. of river flow 

and seepage, would resolve uncertainty about this costly project (seepage and water levels will likely be 

adequate for developing embryos but it’s uncertain what would happen during emergence: if the gravel is 

porous enough the fry may move horizontally to stay immersed but this is apparently unknown; if the redds 

are exposed and the fry move to the surface then predation and surface traffic would reduce survivals). 

Preliminary study to assess the role of zoning to protect the spawning site would address ISRP’s further 

uncertainty about the appropriate use of purchased easements to protect habitat (in light of the recent 

Supreme Court finding about “takings”, there may be more opportunity for zoning approaches to protection 

than previously thought).

CBFWA Review Comments:

M&E would be performed through other BPA funded chum projects. NMFS has identified that this project 

is a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 31032

Develop a Well Water Supply System for the Hardy Creek Chum Salmon Spawning Channel

Sponsor: USFWS

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Columbia Lower

FY03 Request: $152,500 (adjusted $69,800)

5YR Estimate: $172,500 (adjusted $89,800)

Short Description: Develop a well water supply system for the Hardy Creek chum salmon spawning 

channel. This system will mimic spring and seepage flow to ensure that water will be provided to the 

spawning channel during subfreezing weather when Hardy Creek is frozen.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. This proposal from the USFWS requests $152.5k to develop a well water supply system for the 

Hardy Creek chum salmon spawning channel to ensure water when the creek is frozen. Chum is a listed 

species and Hardy Creek is a known chum salmon spawning area. Chum spawning in Hardy Creek is 

hindered by sediment deposition from Columbia River backwater in flood events every 2-5 years, so a 

spawning channel was constructed in 2000 (USACE funds) to contribute to recovery of Columbia River 

chum through the increase in habitat. The channel gets water diverted from the Creek when sufficient water 

is available. Drought conditions in 2000 prevented water from reaching the channel.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

103

The concern this proposal addresses is the effect of freezing winter temperatures on eggs and fry in the 

channel if the water supply is reduced or cut off from the Creek. A well could supplement water in the 

channel during these times at 1,000 gallons per minute. The well could also be used to simulate spring 

flow. The proposal is for assessment, construction and maintenance of the well but monitoring of the 

channel and chum use will take place under the related project 2000-012-00. Potential FWP benefits could 

be significant as the channel capacity for chum spawning is designed at six times that in Hardy Creek.

The response adequately addresses the review questions including past chum use, water withdrawal issues 

(impact on Hardy Creek, water rights, water volume determination), water temperature effects on egg 

development and fry migration, and potential effectiveness of the upwelling design. Additionally, project 

redesign (several small wells in place of one large well) has lowered the project budget. Finally, the ISRP 

recommends that the project managers monitor potential concerns for interactions of the water movement 

between spawning sites. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

Budget has been reduced to $69,800 -- see response to the ISRP for an explanation. NMFS has identified 

that this project is a BiOp project.

ESTUARY AND PLUME PROPOSALS

ProjectID: 199801400

Survival and Growth of Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia River Plume

Sponsor: NMFS

Province and Subbasin: Columbia Estuary

FY03 Request: $2,092,855

5YR Estimate: $10,359,054

Short Description: Evaluate the role of the Columbia River plume in survival of juvenile salmon through 

long-term observations, fine-scale process studies, retrospective assessments, and modeling to assess 

management of flow to improve habitat opportunity.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable (some elements are high priority, other are medium 

to low priority)

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable (depending on the total budget for this province, this project could be funded in part but partial 

funding would defer application of this information for a few years). The authors are commended for their 

comprehensive response to the ISRP comments. The response is more constructive than in past years and 

provides informative responses to most questions. 

This proposal requests funding to continue research in the Columbia River plume to evaluate the role of the 

plume in the survival and growth of juvenile salmon, biological and physical processes within the plume, 

and modeling studies to investigate the management of Columbia River flows to improve “habitat 

opportunity” in the plume (although habitat opportunity as a metric remains undefined and is an objective 

of this study). The proposal provides a strong technical justification and scientific background as to why 

these studies are related to the FCRPS. Most notably, they note:

“Annual spring freshet flows through the Columbia River estuary are ~50% of the 

traditional levels that flushed the estuary and total sediment discharge is ~1/3 of the 

19th Century levels. Decreased spring flows and sediment discharges have also reduced 

the extent, speed of movement, thickness, and turbidity of the plume that once extended 

far out and south into the Pacific Ocean during the spring and summer.”
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

104

The proposal also provided a brief summary of results to date, and noted how this proposal builds on these 

results. The ISRP continues to be strongly supportive of the research but also note that the investigators 

have extended their original objectives to include prediction of estuarine and marine survival of salmon. 

“Our ultimate goal is to predict estuarine and marine survival using a combination of 

empirical indices and computer simulation models.” (page 13, Section 9f)

The stated objectives of this large proposal are now to (Section 9f): 

“1. Through long-term observations, describe interannual variations in the distribution, abundance, and 

performance (health and growth) of juvenile salmon in relation to temporal and spatial characteristics of 

physical and biological features associated with the Columbia River plume and the surrounding ocean. 

2. Conduct fine-scale process studies to identify and characterize the benefit of unique features of the 

Columbia River plume to juvenile salmon.

3. Describe, through observations, historical reconstruction, and numerical physical modeling, the 

temporal and spatial physical features of the Columbia River plume in relation to ocean conditions.

4. Examine the relationship between ocean and plume conditions, river flow, and juvenile salmon 

production using biological models to identify critical relationships between food resources, predator-prey 

interactions, salmon growth and survival.

5. Develop and analyze scenarios that describe changes in salmon survival as a function of Columbia River 

plume characteristics that may result from altered river flows due to climate and human-induced 

modifications, and/or from changing oceanic conditions. We will use physical and biophysical models of 

the plume to relate future FCRPS operations and ocean/climate conditions to salmon survival.”

Objective 5 involves the prediction of salmon survival based on changes in hydrosystem management and 

flows and climate conditions as mediated through the lower river, estuary, and plume. The objective builds 

on recent modeling efforts by associated staff in the Columbia River estuary.

Given the number of questions posed in the ISRP’s preliminary review, the simplest response is to list the 

questions and response:

• Objective 1, Re: February cruise. While reviewers are not convinced by the response (1st 

paragraph), the authors’ provide a suggested approach to examine the importance of February 

sampling. Their suggestion included one February cruise in the three-year program, which would 

be used to assess the importance of future such cruises. This seems reasonable but the total cost of 

the full program may not provide for this.

• Objective 1b (Predation and forage fish surveys), response is adequate.

• Objective 1c (Top trophic predators), the survey integration with objective 1a was clarified, but 

data to be collected on these predators remains marginally described.

• Objective 1d (Salmon growth), response is adequate.

• Objective 1d (residence time of salmon within the plume?). The issue of residence time remains a 

significant uncertainty in this study and major assumptions about residency are required in this 

analysis, but the comparisons to be made were clarified in the response. The discussion of 

microsatellites to assess residence is not obvious, as this will only assess stock of origin. The only 

significant development in this topic may be the reference to a project to develop miniature tags 

for monitoring the residence and survival of individual salmon.

• Objective 1e (Endocrine assessment), reasonable response and seems to be worth investigating. 

The remaining concerns maybe the sensitivity of the assay to sampling conditions, stress on the 

fish, and storage time for the samples. These should be assessed during the study.

• Objective 1f (Genetics). The original proposal only referred to sampling for stock composition 

during June and September (page 31). If stock composition is an important component of the 

study then a separate sampling design is likely needed. However, this would require additional 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

105

costs and sampling platform. We support the development of the microsatellites for stock 

composition but note that the investigators must also be concerned with the collection of base line 

samples from the known spawning populations.

• Objective 1g (Pathogens), the basis of our original concern was addressed (i.e., basis of 

comparison between plume samples and source). However, we are uncertain about the idea of 

comparing infections by stock based on genetic stock identification of individuals. GSI analyses 

of a mixed sample of fish does not assign individual fish to a stock. There are multivariate 

analyses that may be useful for this but these are not referred to in the text. We suggest that more 

consideration of this analysis is still required.

• Objective 1h (Prey resources), the correction provided is adequate.

• Task 2a (Role of fronts). Response is marginal in that it is difficult to believe that each front will 

be size of the net opening. Convenient when it occurs but how likely is this? Sampling of any 

fronts smaller in diameter, or larger, will confound the sampling method with the spatial scale of 

the biological events.

The remainder of the response addressed our confusion of how the three related proposals interacted 

(#30001 Estuary & #30002 Optimization). The authors provide some useful graphics to describe the 

relationships and the data collection and modeling issues between them. 

The ISRP comment on ship time was apparently misinterpreted. Our point was that there may be other 

government programs that could be used to assist funding the vessel costs. The authors did, however, 

consider what priority to assign to the many aspects of this proposal, if funding limitations precluded 

conducting all the work. We accept their comments that Tasks 1 through 3 are ecosystem-based programs 

and that many of the costs are interrelated. Their suggestion that Task 4 and 5 could be deferred for 1-2 

years was an appreciated contribution.

The ISRP wishes to note the thoughtful response to our comments on this obviously large and complicated 

proposal.

CBFWA Review Comments:

NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 30001

Historic habitat opportunities and food-web linkages of juvenile salmon in the Columbia River estuary: 

Implications for managing flows and restoration

Sponsor: NWFSC/NMFS

Province and Subbasin: Columbia Estuary

FY03 Request: $597,559

5YR Estimate: $2,698,559

Short Description: Evaluate the role of river flow on habitat opportunities and food web structure for 

juvenile salmon by comparing historic and current conditions using model simulations and empirically 

derived food-web linkages.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable, agree with CBFWA’s High Priority, first priority in estuary programs. This is a well written and 

comprehensive proposal. The research uses novel techniques for addressing critical questions concerning 

historic changes in estuarine habitat and the food resources of juvenile salmon, and the influence of various 

flow scenarios on estuarine habitat opportunity for salmon. Results of this research should provide 

significant improvements in understanding of the role of the estuary in salmon life histories and production, 

and provide information that will be useful in flow management of the hydrosystem.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

106

The response to the ISRP questions was concise and thorough. The response addressed each ISRP concern 

(including overlap with other estuary proposals) and demonstrated excellent background knowledge of past 

work in the area and the limitations of that work. 

NOTE: The only response that was incomplete referred to the budget and section 9G. The basis of the 

question was that section 9G included the statement “We are requesting through this proposal funds to 

modestly expand the number of compute servers and the capacity for fast-access storage.” However the 

budget does not include any funds for equipment, therefore, we questioned whether the budget was 

complete. Presumably the funds are included in one of the totals but that needs to be confirmed and related 

costs itemized.

CBFWA Review Comments:

NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 30002

Optimization of FCRPS Impacts on Juvenile Salmonids: Restoration of Lower-Estuary and Plume Habitats

Sponsor: OHSU

Province and Subbasin: Columbia Estuary

FY03 Request: $435,192

5YR Estimate: $1,206,325

Short Description: Restore Columbia River estuary and plume juvenile salmonid habitats and optimize 

FCRPS impacts on the plume through improved understanding of estuary and plume physical processes 

and definition of possible future management scenarios

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Partially Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part (disagree with CBFWA ... to some extent), initially fund at a reduced amount and 

increase funding over 3 to 4 year period as information from the other projects increases and need for 

integration increases. The ISRP does agree that it is important to begin dialogue with the system managers 

on how to incorporate the lower river, estuary, and plume environments into their considerations.

It is difficult to argue with the statement that the ultimate goal of the plume and estuary studies are to link 

these to management of the water system (FCRPS) for the improved survival and production of salmonids 

in the Basin. Therefore, since we see nothing fundamentally wrong with this proposal’s presentation, we 

recommend funding. However, we also believe that this proposal is a couple of years ahead of its useful 

time and that it could be deferred if funding limitations required. To prompt development of the integration 

of the lower river and estuary programs with FCRPS and system managers, we are recommending a revised 

approach to be developed by the contract managers and involving a phasing in of the proposal over the next 

few years.

Further, the ISRP continues to be concerned with the reference to “habitat opportunity” metrics and the 

very limited definition of what this means, and that the area defined for this proposal does not include the 

inner estuary or river up to Bonneville dam. The response continues to refer to the outer estuary but then 

other parts of the proposal refer more generally to the estuary proposal and FCRPS interest that clearly 

involves the river below Bonneville Dam and into the plume region. Finally, the response would have been 

strengthened with a clearer description of the use of management science to articulate management 

scenarios.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Project would provide information to managers regarding the effects of flow on % habitat available (i.e., 

what % of habitat would be lost/gained during different flows below Bonneville Dam). Project could lead 

to the development of management schemes. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

107

ProjectID: 30017

Columbia River Tidewater Assessment for Recovery Planning

Sponsor: UP

Province and Subbasin: Columbia Estuary

FY03 Request: $137,338

5YR Estimate: $137,338

Short Description: Characterize habitat/fish productivity relationships; identify factors that limit recovery, 

early actions for recovery; and research, monitoring, and evaluation needs

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. This proposal is to characterize productivity relationships between habitat and fish for 

steelhead, chum, Chinook (5 listed ESUs) in the lower Columbia and upper Willamette. The project would 

also identify factors limiting recovery, identify needed actions and research. 

The response does not add further support for the project, nor does it directly address whether it duplicates 

ongoing efforts of other projects. More importantly, it isn’t clear from the response that the proposers know 

which type of information is available and which is not. Additionally, the response on historical 

reconstructions as experimental controls doesn’t make sense for recovery objectives where recovery levels 

are frequently much less than virgin population sizes. The response, like the proposal, sounds very 

tentative.

CBFWA Review Comments:

NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 30010

Canada-USA Shelf Salmon Survival Study

Sponsor: DFO

Province and Subbasin: Columbia Estuary

FY03 Request: $418,800

5YR Estimate: $2,094,000

Short Description: This project surveys the size, condition, and biological condition of juvenile salmon 

occupying the British Columbia & SE Alaskan continental shelf regions in the autumn (October). The 

survey also includes extensive collection of oceanographic data.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: Do Not Fund

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part. Clarification of personnel and management issues are essential before supporting this 

project. This proposal requests funding from BPA for an October coastwide survey of juvenile salmonids 

and oceanographic conditions along the continental shelf to complement summer surveys conducted by the 

Science Branch, Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (CDFO). The proposal includes an 

extensive and informative summary of recent findings based on similar surveys conducted since 1998 by 

CDFO (some previous funding apparently provided by BPA but not reviewed by ISRP). Based on these 

surveys, the proponents indicated that salmon from the Columbia River tend to migrate northward along 

the continental shelf, that growth of salmon (in particular chinook and coho salmon) and marine 

environmental conditions are not equal along the shelf, and that certain stocks of salmon have a propensity 

to rear in specific areas of the coast. These investigators’ hypothesize that the productivity of some 

Columbia River salmon stocks is more dependent upon where they rear in the ocean than due to their 

freshwater or estuary conditions. 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

108

The proposal requests ongoing (5 years) support for 28 days of ship-time for an October survey and sample 

processing. The survey is intended to map ocean conditions determining the growth and survival of Pacific 

salmon along the West Coast of North America from the British Columbia-Washington border to South 

East Alaska, and to identify which stocks of Columbia River salmon forage in these areas. The stated 

objectives were (Section 9f, page 29): 

(1) identify the extent of the region of poor growth and survival, 

(2) measure the growth and feeding conditions of the salmon within these areas, 

(3) identify the physical and biological changes in the ocean that lead to reduced ocean survival through 

changes in growth, and 

(4) identify the identity of the fish occurring in this region of poor growth using DNA.

While the response was adequate, it generates significant concerns about what portion of the researchers’ 

time the Council would be supporting. The proposal is for an October cruise along the Pacific west coast 

but that cruise is only one of four such cruises each year. The basis of the labor costs continues to be 

unclear ... how many months are associated with the October cruise, at least two of the positions noted are 

not staffed, and who else is contributing funding for these PDFs and graduate students? While the ISRP is 

supportive of this research we must also be aware that funding in this province will be extremely 

competitive and involves several large projects. Consequently, we are inclined to recommend provision of 

operating expenses for the October cruise and not personnel costs unless these can be more accurately 

described and the costs are fairly accounted for and distributed over other sponsors also (i.e., who supports 

3 of the 4 annual cruises?). Further, there is now an additional concern regarding the PI. Given his 

statement in project #30007, if that project was supported the PI expected to take a 3-year leave to focus on 

that project. What would be the consequence of that action and would this project (#30010) continue? In 

the response to project #30007, the PI indicates that his other programs should be able to proceed without 

him but this leaves a level of uncertainty that would not be treated lightly in any other proposal reviews. 

ISRP Preliminary Comments:

The ISRP agrees that useful information about Columbia River salmonids would be derived from joint 

support of these surveys and agree with the authors’ summary comments about their past surveys. 

“Our results to date demonstrate that the ocean habitat of salmon, and the response of salmon to 

that habitat, is neither homogeneous nor constant.” (page 25, Current limitations)

However, much of the proposal is not so carefully worded and is more narrowly focused on the 1998 

results as opposed to the latter three years of data. We disagree with the inference that the west coast of 

Vancouver Island (WCVI) is an inherently “poor” area of ocean production (see objectives stated above). 

We are also concerned that concluding that specific salmon stocks rear in specified areas of the ocean. 

Extensive past data from coded-wire tagged salmon indicate very wide distributions of salmon populations 

... but we do acknowledge that these recoveries are based on the locations of fisheries and generally for 

older aged fish.

We also have significant concern for statements concerning the value of restoration efforts in freshwater 

habitats (3rd para., page 25).

“Whatever the specific causes of the reduced productivity, the decreases in marine survival over 

time for many stocks appear to be much greater than the changes taking place in freshwater 

survival. This suggests that it may not be possible to manipulate the freshwater environment for 

affected stocks sufficiently to compensate for what is occurring in the ocean.”

The ISRP agrees fully with the value of measuring the survival of salmonids in freshwater and marine 

environments, but the inference based on the last sentence is not helpful to this Region. For example: 

i) If ocean conditions are poor, then it is likely that agency rebuilding goals may not be met regardless of 

efforts in freshwater; but it is also likely that improved freshwater conditions can protect diversity within 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

109

populations and increase production during those poor marine survival periods. During those periods, only 

freshwater and fisheries can be managed to preserve future production.

ii) Conversely, if ocean conditions are very good, then production requires sustained production from 

freshwater spawning and rearing habitats.

The Basin no longer debates the needed integration of freshwater and marine conditions for salmonid 

recovery and clearly recognizes the value of studies in the marine environment (as in recent BiOPs). 

Specific comments on Proposal:

1) Protein electrophoresis and DNA analysis ... these seem to be duplicate tasks. The proposal suggests 

that this provides for “finer level of resolution” but it may also result in conflicting results. What evidence 

is there to support this added cost? Further, the DNA sub-proposal may be important but it does not seem 

to be included in the proposal budget. Is this accounted for elsewhere?

2) Similarly, while we see the merit of testing for yearling chinook along the shelf, the task described on 

page 37 does not have any budget assigned to this task. Who is conducting this analysis and is there a cost 

to this proposal?

3) Oceanographic Analyses (page 38) refers to the development of a predictive model integrating 

oceanographic and atmospheric data, but where is this identified in the budget and who would conduct this 

study? Other investigators are proposing similar models, so the ISRP should evaluate the need for each.

4) It has been identified that other programs in Alaska and GLOBEC are also sampling juveniles along the 

continental shelf. How does this proposal link with those projects, and/or does it support the multiagency/national effort already underway? What is the unique contribution of this proposal?

CBFWA Review Comments:

Reviewers suggest that it may be more appropriate to review this proposal through the Systemwide 

Province review since it has systemwide implications (i.e., looking at fish from throughout the system). 

The issues to be reviewed are not necessarily affected by the plume/estuary. The project sponsor should 

resubmit this proposal through the Mainstem and Systemwide Province. NMFS has identified this project 

as a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 30007

An Acoustic Tracking Array for Studying Ocean Survival and Movements of Columbia River Salmon

Sponsor: Kintama Research Corporation

Province and Subbasin: Columbia Estuary

FY03 Request: $2,930,535

5YR Estimate: $7,345,735

Short Description: Development of a skeleton acoustic array to demonstrate an approach to tracking 

movements of individual fish through the river and along the West Coast of North America. The project 

will initially be focused on salmon, but has much wider application.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: Do Not Fund

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable but at a reduced level of support, disagree with CBFWA. Development of the final design for the 

acoustic arrays is high priority. This is an innovative but expensive research project but could provide new 

and important insights into the early sea-life of salmonids and their use of the ocean environment. 

However, as we have noted in previous reviews, the funding for proposals in this province will be very 

competitive. The ISRP suggests though that it would be a reasonable process to discuss the final array 

design with the proponents and to develop an incremental budget over the next few years.

This proposal continues to be technically innovative and the investigators have essentially completed the 

Innovative Project (#200008000) tasks. These results are presented and relevance to the FWP is well 

described. The purpose of this proposal is “to expand research on the acoustic tag and develop a prototype 

array which will allow demonstrating the capabilities of the technology to establish both river and ocean 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

110

movements of chinook salmon (page 5).” The author states that the basic technology is now commercially 

available and the efficiency of its components has been tested. However, he does also note that, 

“the logistics of deploying the equipment and gathering the data from fish tagged at various 

locations will require extensive effort over a wide geographic area. Deployment of equipment in 

the ocean will require significant R&D design effort (in particular, we intend to place the entire 

array sub-surface so that surface floats vulnerable to vessel traffic, fishing activities, and 

“curious” individuals are eliminated). Designs have been developed and partially field-tested for 

deploying the equipment on a semi-permanent basis to withstand the severe conditions that may 

be encountered at various sampling sites.” 

The importance of this technology is that it provides a means to actually measure migration rates (not 

necessarily migration paths, they will be inferred between two points), residency time in an area (e.g., 

within the Columbia River plume), and mortality rates. 

In general, fairly comprehensive responses were provided for most of the ISRP concerns. The author noted 

that he will comply with the requirements of the Innovative proposal and that the work was now complete. 

He noted that there do remain issues with the deployment of the acoustic detection arrays but also noted the 

recent success of deployments in the Atlantic Ocean. There was an additional discussion concerning an 

interaction with the NMFS Plume project to assist in the assessment of residence times and mortality rates. 

However, this would be an additional task that was not included in the Plume response and is not relevant 

for our consideration. The major issue of concern is how to scale the development of these acoustic arrays. 

The authors have proposed a deployment plan and argued that a critical mass of receivers are required and 

that the preferred strategy is multiple array lines (compared to fewer lines with more receivers per line). 

The authors provide adequate justification for this strategy but a minimum number of line arrays were not 

specified (although a proposed number was suggested). 

The ISRP concerns regarding dedicated time of the investigators were addressed and the PI suggested that 

if the project was supported that he would likely request a three-year leave from his current position. The 

other budget issue noted was that an allowance for 20% loss of the receivers per year was added to the 

annual budgets. The budget was re-profiled over time but, in total, it increased. 

A remaining limitation of these studies is the size of the acoustic tag. The tag may be suitable for juvenile 

spring chinook and steelhead (and likely coho), but not for smaller juvenile salmonids. While this may be a 

limitation for some in-river studies or plume studies for fall Chinook, it is not likely a reason to delay 

testing of the receiver arrays that can be tested with the larger tag.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Reviewers believe this proposal may be better suited for the Systemwide Province since this issue is not 

exclusive to the estuary. If the tracking could be scaled down to include the only the plume, then the 

project could be considered for review in the Estuary. The project sponsor should resubmit this project in 

the Mainstem and Systemwide Province. 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

111

ProjectID: 30009

Coastal Cutthroat Movements in the Columbia River Estuary

Sponsor: USFWS

Province: Columbia Estuary

Short Description: Juvenile and adult cutthroat trout from four Columbia River tributaries will be tagged. 

Movements will be monitored by aerial surveys (radio tags) or a tethered array (acoustic tags). Data will be 

analyzed using the CORIE model for physical parameters.

Withdrawn. Funded through a non-BPA source, USACE.

ProjectID: 30014

Map Subtidal Large Woody Debris and Other Habitat Features in Relation to Fish Distribution in the 

Lower Columbia River Estuary

Sponsor: Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory

Province and Subbasin: Columbia Estuary

Short Description: Map location and type of large woody debris (LWD) using side scan sonar and 

quantify conditions where it is most commonly found. Map fish distributions in relation to LWD using 

underwater video and a DIDSON acoustic camera.

Withdrawn.

ProjectID: 30018

Salmonid Population and Habitat Monitoring in the Oregon Portion of the Columbia Estuary

Sponsor: ODFW

Province and Subbasin: Columbia Estuary

FY03 Request: $528,913

5YR Estimate: $2,922,578

Short Description: Implement fish population and habitat monitoring (EMAP) in the Oregon portion of 

the Columbia Estuary

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

If funded this proposal should be combined with project #31034 (Lower Columbia Province) in the 

contracting process. The costs for both projects would seem excessive for annual monitoring and sampling 

sites, and may have to be adjusted within an annual budget allotment. Assurances should be given that this 

will be closely coordinated with NMFS’s work in the estuary.

While the response addressed most of the ISRP concerns, we continue to be uncertain about the assessment 

of expanding habitat use and the lack of biological sampling. If sites are selected at random then the 

coverage of habitats and the issue of assessing range expansion of the fish would be included in the 

sampling design. If not, then some level of monitoring for expansion should be considered. The issue of 

biological sampling should be re-considered by the proponents. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

The cost appears excessive. Could the budget be reduced? This level of effort should be well coordinated 

with other monitoring efforts throughout the Basin.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

112

ProjectID: 31034

Salmonid Population and Habitat Monitoring in the Oregon Portion of the Lower Columbia Province

Sponsor: ODFW

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Columbia Lower

FY03 Request: $532,648

5YR Estimate: $2,943,216

Short Description: Implement fish population and habitat monitoring (EMAP) in the Oregon portion of 

the Lower Columbia Province

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

See comments on project #30018. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

The cost appears excessive. Could the budget be reduced? This level of effort should be well coordinated 

with other monitoring efforts throughout the Basin. NMFS has identified that this project is a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 30015

Lower Columbia River and Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Monitoring and Data Management

Sponsor: LCREP

Province and Subbasin: Columbia Estuary

FY03 Request: $472,000

5YR Estimate: $3,268,000

Short Description: Develop protocols, procedures, and indicators for measuring habitat condition, assess 

exposure levels to toxic contaminants, develop ecosystem restoration information center for housing and 

accessing data specific to lower Columbia River and estuary.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified - see comments)

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable, Low Priority (Qualified)

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

The response was adequate and the project has broad regional support. In concept, the project could be 

important and the ISRP agrees that the lower mainstem and estuary merit a separate monitoring program 

and database, but the database must be tied into the existing WDFW and ODFW systems. However, the 

review committee was bothered by the continued vagueness of the budget values and generalities of 

comments. For example, what data system is proposed, where will it be located, how much monitoring will 

be conducted, where will samples be processed and at what costs? All of these issues need to be more fully 

developed before an assessment can be made about the project value. This is a large program but the review 

committee cannot really determine what the funds will provide and whether the budget has any real basis. 

Will the actual cost really be 2-3x this estimate?

If the project is supported then the ISRP recommends that the Council at least require a more 

comprehensive description of the monitoring plan and components of the database, and how it would be 

annually monitored. This could be an expensive project. Rather than the proponents answering that “costs 

mount quickly” to our question, the proponents must lay out the various cost components with a 

justification for each. Therefore, we also recommend such budget clarification must be provided before 

funding.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

113

CBFWA Review Comments:

Proposed work will focus on the mainstem, an area where management activities are absent. Efforts under 

this project should be well coordinated with other basinwide data management efforts. NMFS has 

identified this project as a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 30016

Implement the Habitat Restoration Program for the Columbia Estuary and Lower Columbia River

Sponsor: LCREP, CREST

Province and Subbasin: Columbia Estuary

FY03 Request: $5,236,200

5YR Estimate: $29,036,200

Short Description: Establish program to identify and prioritize on-the-ground habitat restoration projects 

and plan their monitoring and evaluation. Take action on six restoration projects already processed and 

approved through regional and local workgroups.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (in Part)

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable, the likely benefits to fish and wildlife appear to be high. One approach to this proposal would be 

to purchase properties as funding allows within the provincial allocation. The response is reassuring in its 

description of the selection process used to identify acquisition sites and in its provision of a detailed list of 

the projects considered with selection criteria used - the process seems to have been fair and as 

scientifically informed as possible. The responses to other questions (how much benefit from small 

acreages, what is current and potential fish use, effect or upper watershed disruptions), although not 

provided in quantifiable terms, were adequate.

This proposal presents an important issue for the Council to consider. While the purchase of properties is 

likely the best assurance of providing benefits to fish and wildlife, should the Basin direct such large 

funding into purchases at the likely expense of many more investigative projects? This type of trade-off has 

come up in other Provincial reviews also.

CBFWA Review Comments:

This proposal represents two projects under one project number. NMFS has identified this project as a 

BiOp project.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

114

ProjectID: 199306000

Select Area Fishery Evaluation Project

Sponsor: WDFW, ODFW, CEDC

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Columbia Lower

FY03 Request: $2,290,844

5YR Estimate: $12,075,011

Short Description: Develop and enhance fisheries in the lower Columbia River utilizing hatchery stocks; 

while protecting depressed wild stocks through application of net-pen rearing; and monitor and evaluate 

rearing effects on habitat at net-pen sites.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Partially Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part. Fund ongoing activities but the expansion is not justified scientifically or economically. 

An economic analysis should be done before further investment in the expansion of facilities and fisheries. 

The potential impact on listed stocks remains uncertain but seems limited based on the information 

provided, but see ISRP comments below.

The project is basically a mitigation program to provide fishing opportunity but the fishery is limited by its 

potential impact on ESA stocks. The additional information provided in this response does indicate that the 

project has been operated with care and that they have met the consultative requirements during its 

development. However, without description of methods or M&E plans (as requested), there is very little to 

review technically and our comments are largely non-scientific. We cannot conclude from this material that 

impacts on ESA stocks are minimal (as suggested). The tables provided contain information but there is no 

discussion of this material (e.g., in Table 7 significant straying of Rogue-stock Fall Chinook is evident, and 

how is “Wild Impact” determined in Table 10?). Further, while impacts in fisheries seem limited there is no 

information on the juvenile stage. Juvenile impacts may also be minimal if the juveniles emigrate 

immediately but this remains unknown and without discussion.

The response does not answer what M&E is being conducted other than referring to CWT costs (that 

presumably must be covered in some other project). The new Table 1 does clarify budget alignment but 

neither the table nor Appendix 1 really describe what activities are included in each objective or task. For 

example, the response does clarify that these funds are operating two hatcheries (Gnat Cr. And Grays 

River) to produce fish for SAFE ... but this activity is not evident in Table 1 or Appendix 1 (Table 2 does 

itemize on major task). Attachment 2 notes the economic assessment suggested by the ISRP but does not 

note when it will be completed or whether it will be publicly available. Appendix 2 is interesting 

background, but leaves one major question in our minds ... is there any ultimate production limit or goal 

for this program. As the scale of this program grows the risk of impacts must increase. If we continue to 

accept the evaluation of impacts based on adult fishery sampling, how do we know that this is not after the 

impact at the juvenile stage? The proponents of this project do seem well intentioned, but the project is too 

open ended and without defined limits.

In summary, the response provides more complete information in many areas but important questions 

remain unanswered. The response does not explicitly address how the magnitude of production increases is 

determined or how those increases are evaluated for acceptability. Given past and continuing levels of 

investment in this activity, more critical assessment and reporting are required.

How is “maximum production” of various stocks in various sites determined? What is the content of the 

economic analysis being done by Radtke? What will it include? How will the results of the economic 

analysis affect decisions about whether or how to expand the fisheries? How will the effect of expansion on 

ESA stocks be monitored? How was the estimate of $49 million contribution to the West Coast economy 

calculated? 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

115

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project represents a majority of the funding for the Lower Columbia and Estuary Province budget. 

This project's budget should be reviewed in line with other opportunities in this province.

ProjectID: 31031

Clatsop County Fisheries Restoration Project

Sponsor: CEDC Fisheries

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Columbia Lower

FY03 Request: $455,250

5YR Estimate: $817,250

Short Description: Recolonize eight Columbia River tributaries in Clatsop County with appropriate stocks 

of winter run coho and chum salmon using otolith-marked eyed eggs out-planted in natal streams where 

remnant runs exist, or using introduced stocks when necessary.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Do Not Fund

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. This proposal would recolonize 8 Columbia River tributaries in Clatsop County with winterrun coho and chum and would initiate a captive brood stock program to evaluate sites for rearing coho. 

Young’s Bay historically supported a strong population of chum, and there is likely some value in getting 

chum into these systems, but this proposal is not adequate to the research need. The salmon egg planting 

device (gas powered water pump pushing water through pipe into gravel, eyed eggs introduced into stream) 

was developed and used with mixed success in Alaska in the 1980’s. None of the performance history of 

the device is reviewed in the proposal. The objectives and tasks are presented only in abbreviated form. The 

proposal is vague about the techniques of egg planting and of thermal marking. The proposal says nothing 

about the methods of recovery of marked fish and includes no budget for thermal marking. Even if the 

number of embryos is modest the cost of energy (fuel oil) for marking will not be small. The captive 

broodstock part of the project is poorly developed. No one has ever been successful rearing chum salmon to 

maturity in captivity, and the proposal does not suggest how the proponents intend to do it.

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project aggressively relies on unproven technologies.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

116

HABITAT RESTORATION PROPOSALS

This set of proposals deals with habitat restoration in the lower Columbia River and estuary. Most propose 

to open new habitats by reconnecting the river to side channels, improving access for salmonids, and 

allowing for increased floodplain connectivity. This work would appear to return the river to more natural 

and historic conditions, but most proposals in this set were not able to provide quantified background 

information on pre-restoration conditions. These conditions include the status and current use of the habitat 

by native and exotic species, including predator species and listed species, and prey consumption by 

predators. The presence of predators in the habitats targeted for restoration and reconnection could present 

a serious bottleneck for native fish survival. Other pre-restoration conditions that, for the most part, were 

not well quantified are conditions of the physical habitat, potential bottlenecks for passage into and out of 

the habitat including restrictions imposed by tidegates, and predicted flows patterns and whether greater 

flows would achieve the objectives of the project.

Several proposals involved wetlands and side channels near the confluence of the Willamette and Columbia 

rivers. This area could be a very important refuge especially for fish moving through the lower Willamette 

and Portland. Unfortunately, the proposals in that area do not demonstrate a coordinated approach nor any 

reference to the joint value of these multiple programs. The Council should identify this concern to these 

proponents.

ProjectID: 30004

Blind Slough Restoration Project - Brownsmead, Oregon

Sponsor: CREST

Province and Subbasin: Columbia Estuary

FY03 Request: $173,550

5YR Estimate: $193,550

Short Description: Restoration of tidal exchange between the Columbia River Estuary and Blind Slough 

in the community of Brownsmead, Oregon. BPA funds will be used to match U.S. Army Corps Section 

1135 funding for 25% of the total project costs.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified - see comments)

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable (Qualified)

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable if they meet the conditions listed below. 

The response is mostly adequate, although tentative. The response indicates that the selection of the seven 

sites was determined by landowner consent, rather than by scientific criteria. Selection of additional sites 

will also be opportunity, rather than need, driven. Regarding statistical design for project monitoring, the 

response indicates that a monitoring design will be developed by scientific advisors and in collaboration 

with ongoing monitoring efforts in the area. The description of how tidegate effectiveness will be 

monitored does not provide specifics but refers to “appropriate metrics and monitoring protocols.” The 

strongest aspect of the response is the reference to coordination and collaboration possibilities with other 

agencies working in the area. A plan to implement this coordination rather than reference to the potential 

for such coordination would be a good idea and the ISRP continues to recommend that the participation or 

advice of a more quantitative researcher be sought for this program.

While the response was adequate, we believe that it continues to point out the need for more technical 

support in the development of sampling and monitoring designs, and in the basic experimental design (as 

noted in point 3 of the response). The monitoring program should be designed before work begins and 

should include a pre-program assessment of the predator populations. The response suggests that the 

“longer-term considerations” of the program outweigh concern for the predators but our point was that the 

predators may preclude the benefits of this work. We also hope that the respondents are correct but our 

need is to assess the results of this program, and predators will be a significant concern in the assessment.

CBFWA Review Comments:

NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

117

ProjectID: 31014

Evaluate juvenile salmonid use of restored floodplain wetlands in the Lower Columbia River Estuary

Sponsor: DU

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Columbia Lower

FY03 Request: $150,000

5YR Estimate: $450,000

Short Description: Evaluate benefits and effects of wetland habitat restoration on juvenile salmonids 

rearing and migrating through the Lower Columbia and implications for restoration and salmon recovery.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable, this is a technically inadequate proposal. The background material is interesting and the 

proponents state that the projects are expected to open habitat to salmon juveniles that will be valuable to 

them and that they’ll look to see if salmon do indeed use them. However, neither the proposal nor response 

provided a clear statement of a research question and a rigorous study design. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

It is not clear that this project is well coordinated with other assessment projects in the Lower 

Columbia/Estuary. The scope and budget should be reviewed in line with other assessments funded in the 

estuary. NMFS has identified that this project is a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 30011

Preserve and Restore Columbia River Estuary Islands to Enhance Juvenile Salmonid and Columbian 

White-tailed Deer Habitat.

Sponsor: USFWS & CLT & USGS

Province and Subbasin: Columbia Estuary

FY03 Request: $719,437 (Adjusted $585,437)

5YR Estimate: $1,372,687 (adjusted $1,140,687)

Short Description: Purchase 626 acres on Crims and Walker Islands and restore tidal emergent marsh and 

riparian forest habitat by enhancing tidal channels to provide juvenile salmonid rearing/ foraging habitat 

and to achieve the recovery of the Columbian white-tailed deer.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

The project sponsors provided a thorough response to the ISRP comments. Information provided on the 

determination of viable subpopulations is good and the primary issue of habitat security was clarified. The 

estimation of habitat needs was done in a systematic manner using data from existing research. The 

response to the responsibility of the FWP to address whitetail habitat is also sufficient. The answer to 

whether the plans for tidal channel restoration had been subjected to a hydrologic review is more tentative. 

A team visited the site and determined that it would be OK, “given proper engineering design.” 

Hydrologists looked over the proposal and thought it looked alright. The proposers are placing heavy 

reliance on refuge personnel’s working knowledge of local hydrology. It’s not clear that a systematic 

hydrological assessment was performed. The need for this project was justified at the population level, but 

questions remain on whether the channel restoration will be successful. It’s hard to know from the proposal 

and response, but we will probably have to monitor to know anyway.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

118

CBFWA Review Comments:

Crediting will be applied to Oregon since there are remaining credits in Oregon and not Washington. 

Information will be provided to CBFWA regarding what facility the credits will be applied to. NMFS has 

identified this project as a BiOp project. The project sponsor has offered several cost savings suggestions 

for this budget. In the budget, Section 5, Objective 3, task C could be removed for a savings of $15,000. 

Under Section 7, Objective 2, tasks A and B could be removed for an additional savings of $117,000. 

Finally, in the outyear-based budget for Section 7, Objective 3 could be removed for an annual savings of 

$196,000. The budget has been modified to reflect these changes.

ProjectID: 31015

Sturgeon Lake/Dairy Creek Restoration

Sponsor: WMSWCD

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Columbia Lower

FY03 Request: $121,000

5YR Estimate: $256,000

Short Description: Reopen the Dairy Creek channel to Upper Sturgeon Lake, construct a rock spur jetty in 

the Columbia River, re-construct and replace an existing debris boom, and repair an existing culvert.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. The response attempts but does not adequately answer the ISRP’s concerns. The proponents 

do not describe adequate monitoring and evaluation to determine if fish and wildlife will benefit from the 

project. The ISRP concern regarding preparation of a proposal for baseline work that provides a more 

thorough documentation of lake system use by salmonids still applies. One rather long biological objective 

is described in the response, but tasks and methods are absent. The information should be developed into a 

proposal of standard format.

The habitat in Sturgeon Lake and Dairy Creek could be very valuable, and the proposal describes a 

potentially worthwhile project that could significantly improve mainstem holding and rearing capacity for 

salmonid. This project would reopen a channel to Upper Sturgeon Lake and make a jetty, debris boom and 

repair a culvert for the purpose of reopening habitat. The 3200-acre Sturgeon Lake on Sauvie Island in the 

Columbia River is owned by the State of Oregon and managed by ODFW. The lake is used by outmigrating juvenile salmonids for off-channel feeding. Federal levees and sediment plugs block water flow 

into the lake. The proposal states that construction of a stable entrance channel into the Sturgeon Lake 

ecosystem offers a significant opportunity for backwater feeding and refugia for salmon.

The project history details a number of actions taken to clear the channel, control erosion, and control 

sedimentation. However, sand migration continued. USACE continues to be involved and may fund the 

reconfiguration of a jetty once landowner concerns about flooding are addressed. The proposal suggests a 

75% ACE/25% FWP cost-share.

CBFWA Review Comments:

NMFS has identified that this project is a BiOp project.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

119

ProjectID: 31019

Fish Passage Assessment and Prioritization Program

Sponsor: DLUT

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Columbia Lower

FY03 Request: $72,432

5YR Estimate: $143,681

Short Description: Develop fish passage barrier assessment methodology for road / stream crossings, 

inventory and assess county owned facilities on a 5th field HUC basis, prioritize passage barriers to core 

habitat areas for threatened and endangered fish species.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. This proposal addresses the need for an inventory of fish passage barriers in the Tualatin River 

system, which according to the proposal is dominated by productive habitat, has no hatchery releases, and 

therefore offers the potential for wild stock benefits from reestablishing habitat connectivity. The proposal 

cites the first step to reconnecting habitat as the identification of road-stream crossings that act as passage 

barriers. Proposers argue that because of the Tualatin’s location in an area of rapid population growth, 

active watershed management will be necessary to retain habitat quality. They see the road-stream crossing 

barrier analysis as critical to filling gaps in knowledge of how to prioritize restoration actions.

The proposal shows good connection Willamette Basin plans and projects. It is a reasonable project that 

could open new habitat to colonization by salmonids. The plan for assessing and prioritizing fish passage 

barriers makes efficient use of time and information. 

The response is complete and indicates not only good response to review comments but also shows 

thorough followup and investigation of project improvement possibilities and potential collaborations. The 

proposers are in touch with ODFW about assessing habitat, and are conscious of restrictions on removing 

barriers that maintain historical isolation of stocks. The Washington culvert protocols, according to the 

response, are too difficult for technicians to use; the proposers plan to get training and incorporate a USFS 

protocol in their manual. The response was adequate.

ProjectID: 31021

Reduction of gravel road sediment production & interruption of sediment delivery to streams

Sponsor: DLUT

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Columbia Lower

FY03 Request: $238,436

5YR Estimate: $510,674

Short Description: Decrease sediment produced by gravel roads and interrupt delivery systems that 

hydrologically connect the road to the stream systems.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Do Not Fund

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. Given the myriad of land use problems in the Tualatin River, the sponsors have not 

adequately demonstrated that deposition of fines in the streambeds of tributaries to the Tualatin is a 

significant factor limiting egg to fry survival for salmonids. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

Reviewers question whether fixing gravel roads is a BPA responsibility.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

120

ProjectID: 31024

Protect, Enhance and Maintain Wetland, Riparian and Upland Habitat on the Shillapoo Wildlife Area

Sponsor: WDFW

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Columbia Lower

FY03 Request: $0

5YR Estimate: $515,310

Short Description: Maintain and implement measures to restore and enhance wetland, riparian, and upland 

habitat in the Vancouver Lake Lowlands area.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable 

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable, Low to Medium Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable, low to medium priority due to the potential for negative impacts on fish. The SWA is located in 

the Vancouver Lowlands, and is intended to provide riparian, wetland, and oak woodland habitat. A former 

lakebed was drained and developed as agricultural land. A goal of the WDFW acquisition program is to 

acquire the entire former lakebed and restore it to its former species diversity and wetland functions for 

wintering waterfowl.

This appears to be a worthwhile project that will benefit wetland-dependent species in the Vancouver 

Lowlands. Areas targeted for restoration and specific restoration actions are clearly identified. The response 

indicates that the project would be only marginally affected by failure to acquire any parcel. 

An extensive M&E component includes five types of surveys. Monitoring of habitat and of wildlife 

response to changes in habitat will be done. The project has measurable indicators of success. The rationale 

for this project and significance to regional programs is clear. A complete history of land use in the area is 

provided. A HEP analysis was conducted in 1994-95. A hydrological assessment of alternatives for lakebed 

management was commissioned by the COE.

The response is thorough and complete with regard to vegetation and wildlife recovery. With regard to fish, 

the response acknowledges that opening the connection to Shillapoo Lake would have marginal value to 

fish or even be detrimental because of predation or elevated temperatures. The response indicates that in 

recognition of these potential problems the reconnection part of the project is being reconsidered.

CBFWA Review Comments:

This is an ongoing project (BPA contract number is 96BI97789). This project has been funded through the 

Washington Wildlife Agreement. NMFS has identified that this project is a BiOp project. 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

121

ProjectID: 31033

Restoration of Columbia River Floodplain Functions to Steigerwald Lake

Sponsor: USFWS

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Columbia Lower

FY03 Request: $373,000

5YR Estimate: $2,262,000

Short Description: Reconnect Columbia River flows, restore riparian/wetland ecosystem functions, and 

improve salmon habitat on Steigerwald Lake and associated floodplain habitat.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. This proposal has good potential for FWP benefits and would effectively reconnect a substantial 

wetland and lake with the Columbia River. The proposal has excellent cost sharing arrangements and 

would build on significant past investments by BPA for land acquisitions. The program structure is logical 

with assessments and planning leading to possible construction of flow controls in 2005. The costs for 

these activities are reasonable and a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation plan is outlined (to address 

pre- and post-development periods). 

One point not emphasized in the proposal is the potential to restore another chum population in the lower 

Columbia River (Gibbons Creek). Chum salmon in this area exist as several population fragments and a 

restored population in this section of the river could be an important connection between populations below 

Bonneville Dam and those further downstream.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Portions of this project were originally funded through the Washington Wildlife Agreement. NMFS has 

identified that this project is a BiOp project. 

ProjectID: 199902500

Sandy River Delta Riparian Forest, Wetlands, and Anadromous Estuary Restoration

Sponsor: USFS-CRGNSA

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Sandy

FY03 Request: $162,000

5YR Estimate: $1,246,000

Short Description: Restore 600-acre island of rare Columbia River floodplain "gallery" riparian forest. 

Restore 200 acres wetland/associated upland habitat. Remove 1930's dike from original Sandy River 

channel to restore hydrology and increase anadromous habitat.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable at high priority. The potential habitat area restored in this proposal is significant and it is an 

important area of the mainstem river. The restoration of wetlands and removal of the dyke may also be 

important to the continued restoration of chum salmon in this reach. Our assessment of this proposal and 

its potential benefits is contingent upon removing the dyke. Funding for future years should be contingent 

on this proceeding and the response makes it clear that funding contingent on dike removal is possible and 

that the project could be conducted in segments. NEPA analysis will be conducted in preparation for the 

dike removal, and this portion should be funded.

CBFWA Review Comments:

NMFS has identified that this project is a BiOp project.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

122

ProjectID: 199206800

Implement Willamette Basin Mitigation Program

Sponsor: ODFW

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Willamette

FY03 Request: $1,567,500

5YR Estimate: $5,659,528

Short Description: Mitigate for impacts caused by hydroelectric facilities through enhancements, 

easements, acquisitions, restoration, and management of wetlands and other NWPPC target habitat types 

and species in the Willamette Basin in Oregon.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable, Low Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable but low priority because of the limitations of the project. The proposal is for a large-scale effort 

in habitat acquisition, enhancement, restoration and management in the Willamette Basin. The background 

and significance to regional programs is clear and thorough. The expectation is to add 200-300 HUs each 

year for 5 years through the implementation of 2-3 mitigation projects. The project history provides some 

assessment of progress that the ISRP requested last year, although not quantified or presented in tables. 

Objectives list a rather complicated series of tasks related to project planning, implementation, O&M of 

existing projects, and monitoring and evaluation. 

This is an ongoing program in which people have seen value in the past, but it needs to be better designed. 

The response lacks technical depth and is only marginally adequate. The proposed use of graduate students 

is not well thought out: turning responsibility over to graduate students for development of a sample design, 

sampling and data analysis is inappropriate and will not ensure quality results. Objectives of the analysis, 

the sample design and data to be collected should be clearly described in advance of the project, rather than 

left to students to develop. The students would have to be supervised at each step. The response is 

similarly vague with reference to enlisting help of professional hydrologists and geomorphologists.

 

Finally, the response fails to address the larger question of the effectiveness of purchasing small ad hoc 

parcels of land as a restoration process. Does it have a cumulative beneficial effect that amounts to 

significant gain? Overall, there is a need for far more professional assessment in this project.

CBFWA Review Comments:

A new objective has been included in this proposal.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

123

ProjectID: 31013

Investigate Re-establishing Anadromous Fish Populations Above man-made Barriers

Sponsor: ODFW

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Willamette

FY03 Request: $221,977

5YR Estimate: $1,419,768

Short Description: Investigate the possibilities of re-establishing spring chinook and winter steelhead 

populations into historic habitat above impassable man-made barriers in the Willamette basin to link them 

with existing populations below barriers.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, Low to Medium Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable, at low to medium priority. The response is marginal in provision of details for design of the 

study, etc. but does generally address questions presented by the ISRP. Broodstock for the project would be 

based on availability (which is currently good) at local State hatcheries, downstream migration of smolts 

would be over or through the dams, and monitoring programs would involve annual downstream traps, etc. 

Concerning how representative the broodstock would be, the reply notes that the hatchery stocks were 

derived from the local populations but that the available fish would “not truly (be) representative” of the 

returning fish. Commitment to investment in these hatchery and dam facilities will likely increase as the 

Willamette Recovery plan is finalized. The project is comparable to projects #31005/31017 in objective, 

but the ISRP has greater confidence, based on the technical presentation and facilities, that the Basin will 

learn more by investing in those programs rather than this one. However, technically there is no serious 

reason to not fund this project, especially given the amount of habitat available above these dams and 

current availability of adult production. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project has a very broad scope without clearly defined decision points relative to success or failure of 

establishing sustainable populations.

ProjectID: 31016

Calapooia River Flow Acquisition and Fish Passage Assessment

Sponsor: ODFW

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Willamette

FY03 Request: $53,500

5YR Estimate: $110,500

Short Description: Improve upstream passage for ESA-listed fish on the Calapooia River by reimbursing 

the owner of Thompsons Mills to not divert flows for power generation. Evaluate the effect of flow 

manipulation on upstream passage and fish survival.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. This project would improve fish passage around the hydroelectric facility at Thompson’s Mills. 

The project proposes to improve flows through and below the fish passage facility at Thompson’s Mills by 

paying the owner of the facility to not divert water during the late spring and early summer. This would 

improve passage for spring chinook and other species. The response is adequate, did provide additional 

information, and the cost is reasonable as a “place holder” until a longer-term solution or agreement can be 

reached. The response indicates continuing uncertainties about specific long-term solution at the site: 

whether water rights will be acquired or mill operations cease. However, a partnership is continuing to 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

124

work on developing a long-term agreement for the Mill. The response provides much more information on 

what is known about fish passage at the site. Given the continued work towards an agreement, the review 

committee recommends funding for up to 3 years while an agreement is worked on. However, after 3 years 

the funding should terminate as there should have been adequate time to complete the required water 

agreements.

CBFWA Review Comments:

This proposal is an interim fix to provide flow to listed fish while discussion continues with the landowner 

to pursue a long-term solution. It is anticipated that this temporary action will only be necessary for the 

next two years.

ProjectID: 199205900

Amazon Basin/Eugene Wetlands Phase Two

Sponsor: TNC

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Willamette

FY03 Request: $60,650

5YR Estimate: $1,363,800

Short Description: Continue the restoration and enhancement of existing mitigation lands. Habitats being 

protected or restored include riparian zones of seasonal streams, wet prairie, upland prairie, forested 

wetland, oak woodland, and dry coniferous forest.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The response addressed the ISRP comments and indicates a reasonable level of monitoring and 

local involvement. This proposal is to continue enhancement of wildlife and aquatic habitat in the Willow 

Creek Natural Area. This 429-acre tract is part of a larger protected area totaling 1200 acres. The proposal 

asks for funds to manage and restore habitats on a 99-acre parcel acquired in 2001 and to continue 

restoration on the remaining (earlier acquired) 330 acres.

The management goal is to maximize wildlife and biodiversity values on the site. The response presents 

objectives rewritten to be measurable and removes former redundancy. Evaluation of the results of past 

actions is presented by objective and task. 

The links to the hydrosystem and mitigation are not well demonstrated. The priority of this effort should be 

further analyzed as to benefits to fish and wildlife. Our recommendation does not support CBFWA’s High 

Priority ranking. 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

125

ProjectID: 200001600

Protect and Enhance Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Additions

Sponsor: USFWS/USGS

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Lower Columbia

FY03 Request: $256,000

5YR Estimate: $874,100

Short Description: Provide riparian, forested wetland, and off-channel emergent wetland backwater 

habitats for salmonid rearing and predator avoidance areas adjacent to the mainstem Tualatin River. 

Acquired and restored lands are protected and maintained in perpetuity.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. While the response seems to be a reasonable response to the ISRP comments it certainly did not 

provide substantial detail on such questions as whether baseline data (pre-restoration) exist, and whether 

restoration objectives exist in a form that the M&E can assess progress toward their achievement. The 

proposal represents a purchase opportunity to make significant additions to riparian habitat along the 

Tualatin River that would likely aid fish and wildlife in the Tualatin area. However, there is a highly 

urbanized area downstream from these properties so the likely benefit may be limited. The location of the 

parcels within the purchase boundary of the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge is a plus. 

The priority of this effort should be further analyzed as to benefits to fish and wildlife. Our 

recommendation does not address CBFWA’s High Priority ranking.

ProjectID: 199107800

Burlington Bottoms Wildlife Mitigation Project

Sponsor: ODFW

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Willamette

FY03 Request: $110,000

5YR Estimate: $772,610

Short Description: This project protects, maintains and enhances a diverse array of wetland habitats for 

many species of fish and wildlife including the state listed western painted and pond turtles and ESA 

species including bald eagles and salmon.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable, Low Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable at low priority. This proposal is to implement the five-year management plan (completed in 2001) 

for fish and wildlife wetland habitats at the confluence of the Columbia, which is likely the most critical 

habitat in the Portland metropolitan area. This is an important refuge area for animals that pass through 

Portland.

There are likely benefits to fish and wildlife but the proposal and response continue to be technically 

deficient and only partially responsive to ISRP concerns. The discussion of the value of the site to fish 

species is vague. The response describes the plan and wildlife surveys without much detail on survey 

design or methods. It does not provide requested data summarizing the surveys. Additionally, the response 

provides only general detail on the species that will be affected by opening more wetland habitat. 

However, specific information is provided on the expected length of time needed for exotic species control.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

126

This proposal is one of several similar proposals in the area and for similar work activity. It is difficult to 

see how all the projects being conducted by different groups fit together. Are they coordinated and 

complementary, or fragmented? 

ProjectID: 31010

Re-open Off-channel Habitat for Lower Columbia ESU

Sponsor: ESA Program

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Willamette

FY03 Request: $449,000

5YR Estimate: $589,000

Short Description: Eliminate velocity barriers to off-channel habitat, facilitate passive restoration for 

listed species within the Lower Columbia ESU

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Do Not Fund

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. The proposal does not provide details on objectives, tasks and methods. The presentation 

provided some information on monitoring but the monitoring tasks should have been described in the 

proposal. The benefits to fish and wildlife appear marginal and are not justified in the proposal. The 

baseline conditions are not established. The impacts on existing species are not adequately described.

CBFWA Review Comments:

CBFWA supports this project for its benefits to fish; however, CBFWA does not support Bonneville 

funding for this action. Although Bonneville has funded culvert replacement within the basin, this project 

is completely within the management jurisdiction of the City of Portland.

ProjectID: 31011

Renaturalize Functional Floodplain Habitat within the Portland Reach of the Lower Willamette River

Sponsor: COP

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Willamette

FY03 Request: $524,500

5YR Estimate: $865,500

Short Description: Restore river/floodplain habitat diversity in an urbanized, channelized reach of the 

Willamette R. by adding river alluvium, plant materials and large wood in an existing shallow depositional 

area. This is one component of a larger project.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Do Not Fund

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. A response was not warranted. The potential benefits to fish and wildlife are not apparent. 

The risks to migrating salmon associated with the proposed project are probably as likely as any benefits. 

The survival rates of salmon transiting through the City of Portland are not provided and no case is made 

that salmon would benefit from the project. There is no quantification or summarization of the 

environmental, social, and economic benefits from the proposed private-public partnership. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

This is an innovative and untested approach towards maximizing urban growth while protecting riparian 

habitats. There is a lack of discussion regarding the risks of attempting this type of action (erosion, 

increased predation, etc.) and how those risks would managed.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

127

COWLITZ PROPOSALS

ProjectID: 31005

Incorporating Pit Tag Technology to Evaluate and Monitor the Reintroduction Effort for Anadromous 

Salmonids in the Upper Cowlitz Watershed

Sponsor: WDFW

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Cowlitz

FY03 Request: $257,130

5YR Estimate: $971,730

Short Description: We propose to update pit tag system to basin ISO standards at the Cowlitz Falls Dam 

and Fish Facility and use pit tags to monitor and measure collection, collection efficiency, smolt 

production, and a prototype surface collector entrance.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not fundable (Qualified - see comments)

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not fundable (Qualified)

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

See comments on project #31017. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project should be considered under the Mainstem and Systemwide Province. The data collected 

would contribute to a larger database for evaluating populations. NMFS has identified that this project is a 

BiOp project.

ProjectID: 31017

Monitor and evaluate the success of hatchery salmonid reproduction for reintroduction of anadromous 

salmonids to the upper Cowlitz Basin

Sponsor: WDFW

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Cowlitz

FY03 Request: $183,661

5YR Estimate: $1,100,161

Short Description: Monitor the success of the reintroduction of anadromous salmonids to the upper 

Cowlitz Basin, including distribution, timing and success of reproduction of hatchery adults and success of 

upper basin seeding.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not fundable (Qualified - see comments)

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not fundable (Qualified)

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Defer decision until an appropriate experimental design is developed. Funding of #31005 could proceed 

independent of #31017 but the value of that investment would be significantly reduced without the full 

development of the potential studies in the upper Cowlitz River (project #31017).

The Basin has witnessed other unique opportunities to learn from new programs, that promised to develop 

appropriate experimental designs, but results have been less than expected. The upper Cowlitz offers one 

of the best environments and research opportunity but must be conducted under an appropriate design. At 

present the project is not conceived of as an experiment and appropriate hypotheses have not been 

developed. The response included three hypotheses (top page 5) but these only describe hypotheses that 

are implicit in the reintroduction program, rather than outlining an experimental design that would enable 

testing of hypotheses and methods for testing them. The study design is not adequate and does not provide 

any confidence that valuable results will be gained from the project. Based on the responses for projects 

#31005 and #31017, the ISRP is inclined to recommend Do Not Fund. 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

128

The ISRP has clearly indicated their support for the development of these two projects into a potentially 

important study for the Basin.

“BPA has already invested heavily in the Cowlitz watershed by building the Fish Facility ($22 

million) but this proposal has good cost sharing and local support. There is an opportunity for 

exciting and informative research programs concerning salmon restoration, role of nutrients in 

the ecosystem, and hatchery versus wild comparisons in the upper Cowlitz watershed.”

We continue to support the development of these projects and consequently recommend that a limited time 

(e.g. six months) be allowed for the development of an appropriate design before a final decision is made 

on these two projects. There are numerous important questions in the Basin that could be studied in this 

environment, but the proponents do not seem to be aware of the opportunity presented. An advisory 

committee could be developed to assistant in the timely development of this design and execution of these 

projects.

Further, the responses to questions about recreational harvest focus on the regulation allowing targeting of 

marked hatchery fish and does not directly address the potential problem of incidental catch and release 

mortality. Discussion of the design should also consider the appropriateness of a recreational fishery in the 

upper Cowlitz. Can the fishery be relocated or limited to areas to minimize impacts?

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project is considered part of the base for the Biological Opinion by NMFS.

ProjectID: 31020

Monitor Coweeman River Salmonid Populations

Sponsor: WDFW

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Cowlitz

FY03 Request: $277,962

5YR Estimate: $1,009,366

Short Description: determine freshwater productivity and marine survival of wild tule fall chinook and 

wild winter steelhead to develop risk assessments and recovery actions for these ESA listed populations

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, but potentially High Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The PI provided an adequate response to our questions. This project could develop a potentially 

important indicator stock for naturally-spawning Tule fall Chinook in the lower Columbia River and the reestablishment of a local broodstock for steelhead salmon. However, for steelhead it would be preferable to 

develop a more quantitative method for the monitoring of spawning escapement so that the full value of the 

smolt program can be used. Otherwise, the stock-recruit comparison will be between an index of adult 

spawners and a quantitative estimate of the smolts produced. The other consideration is that this would be 

the only monitoring of a truly naturally spawning population of Tule fall Chinook salmon in the lower 

Columbia River. Tule Chinook are late-run fall Chinook salmon and are contrasted with the earlier Bright 

fall Chinook of the Hanford Reach and Lewis River.

CBFWA Review Comments:

The reviewers are unclear whether BPA should be responsible for funding this activity. NMFS has 

identified that this project is a BiOp project.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

129

OTHER LOWER COLUMBIA PROPOSALS

ProjectID: 31029

Clark County ESA Outreach Program

Sponsor: Clark County, Washington

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Columbia Lower

FY03 Request: $205,000

5YR Estimate: $813,000

Short Description: Work with willing landowners to develop, record and implement stewardship plans on 

5 to 20 acre rural residential parcels in priority watersheds.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Do Not Fund

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. A response was not needed. This proposal is to work with landowners to implement 

stewardship plans for riparian habitat restoration on small rural residential parcels in Clark County priority 

watersheds. It extends the Clark Conservation District’s farm plan project into rural residential areas. 

Currently, Clark County habitat protection ordinances are applied only when landowners voluntarily 

change land use and become subject to development permitting requirements. Many parcels are already 

developed to the limits of the zoning code. There are approximately 3700 of these parcels over 1500 miles 

along priority streams. 

The goal of the project is to create a series of functional riparian areas that generate more riparian habitat. It 

will develop stewardship plans along 100 of the 1500 stream miles. The proposal does not indicate whether 

this is enough to establish connectivity.

Objective 4 is to develop an incentive package to encourage landowner participation. The proposal does not 

make a convincing case that this approach is the only or best alternative. It lacks detail as to the nature of 

the incentives and is not specific about what “review the possibilities” to determine political and fiscal 

implications means. If tax or permitting incentives are a possibility, wouldn’t an ordinance change also be 

possible? 

According to the proposal, the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board is charged with developing a 

recovery plan for listed fish in this region, and will assign the responsibility for various actions to the 

entities with authority over those actions. Clark County has authority over land use decisions but rather 

than create new land-use requirements it is taking the more politically feasible approach of offering 

financial incentives for improved riparian practices. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

Reviewers question the timing of the proposed work relative to subbasin planning and TRT work. 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

130

ProjectID: 31022

Establish a Water Cleanup Plan (temperature TMDL) for the East Fork of the Lewis subbasin

Sponsor: Ecology

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Lewis

FY03 Request: $118,000

5YR Estimate: $168,000

Short Description: Expedite development of a water cleanup plan-TMDL for the East Fork Lewis to 

identify sources of pollution related to temperature, DO and pH; allocate maximum allowable pollution 

from various sources; and develop strategies to improve salmonids habitat.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable, agree with CBFWA. The ISRP does not make a recommendation on priority, although this looks 

like a good approach. The sponsors propose to assess thermal heterogeneity using FLIR, validate the FLIR 

results using in-stream temperature data loggers, and input the data into a heat source model. The results 

will be used to inform stakeholders and develop a plan to improve water quality. The sponsors propose to 

involve stakeholders in plan development. The response was good and provided the requested detail and 

explanations on the data loggers, temperature model, and applicability to management to improve water 

temperatures on the East Fork. The explanation of the use of FLIR data was convincing. There is good 

potential for this project to be followed by interagency collaborations on a larger scale.

ProjectID: 31023

Stream Gaging Installation and Operations in the Lewis, Salmon/Washougal, and Gray/Elochoman 

Subbasins

Sponsor: Ecology

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Cowlitz

FY03 Request: $395,000

5YR Estimate: $593,000

Short Description: Purchase and install eight continuous, real-time, telemetered stream flow gages, and 

six staff gages, at critical reaches and tributaries in each of the three subbasins.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable, agree with CBFWA. The ISRP does not make a recommendation on priority, although stream 

gages are a very important tool for stream monitoring and management. This proposal is to purchase and 

install 14 stream gages in 3 subbasins critical to anadromous fish. The gages will be put on 8 continuously 

measured sites and 6 instantaneously measured sites in each subbasin. They will fit into and expand the 

network of WA stream gages to provide data needed to support a variety of water and salmon initiatives. 

The single objective of the project is to provide stream flow data with a resolution appropriate to water and 

salmon protection and restoration initiatives and proposals. 

The proposal appears to be a reasonable request to improve quantification of stream flow in these rivers. 

The strategy is described as providing gages at critical reaches and tributaries in each of the three 

subbasins. The response provides adequate detail to answer review questions. Criteria for prioritizing 

potential sites appear reasonable.

CBFWA Review Comments:

NMFS has identified that this project is a BiOp project.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

131

ProjectID: 31004

Salmon Carcass Enrichment -- Willamette (Clackamas) & Sandy Subbasins

Sponsor: USFS

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Willamette

FY03 Request: $509,858

5YR Estimate: $1,607,327

Short Description: Multi-year salmon carcass enrichment project applied over entire 5th field watersheds 

(with replicates and controls) aimed at restoring native runs of salmon and steelhead in the Clackamas and 

Sandy rivers.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, Low Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable but at low priority. The response states that the objective of this project is “to restore fish 

populations within these streams”. This may be the goal of this investigation but does not seem to be the 

objective since only one restoration method is presented and the body of the proposal is clearly a research 

program. We have assessed the response on that basis. Regarding our question 1 from the preliminary 

review: What then is unique about a “whole system” treatment as a research topic and what might you 

really expect to achieve? The test is between treated and untreated systems but the scale of these streams 

also introduces a number of sources of uncertainty into the interpretation of results. For example, if 

production was greater in the treated systems (as expected likely), was it proportional to the total loading, 

was production increased throughout each system or just certain habitats, etc.? Or, if production was not 

different between systems, does this mean treatment simply does not work? It may actually reflect 

differences in variability between streams, within streams, other bottlenecks in production, or it really did 

not work. Therefore, if the only aspect of uniqueness is the “first large-scale proposal of this magnitude 

utilizing carcasses as the direct nutrient source” then there seem to be pros and cons to this scale of 

investigation. How much value should we place in this type of study then?

Concerning the other questions in the response, these answers were also of variable quality. By question, 

2. What is the direct evidence suggesting that nutrient deficiencies in these streams are a major limitation 

for salmon production? 

The response provided indirect evidence only, nothing direct.

3. The sponsors propose to compare smolt production before and after carcass addition. Pre-treatment 

evaluations occurred over 1-5 year period, depending on the watershed. Given inter-annual variability in 

smolt production that could arise from variation in stream conditions and adult returns, is the pretreatment 

evaluation of sufficient duration to provide meaningful comparison with post-treatment smolt production? 

Concerning the experimental design, we concur with the response that the real value is the controls.

4. Although the “control” and “treatment” watersheds were randomly selected, they are few in number (five 

treatments and three controls). How do the watersheds compare with respect to physical parameters such as 

watershed size, stream size, gradient (long profile), hydrograph, land use patterns, and especially nutrient 

loads, and biological parameters such as adult returns, juvenile growth and survival, rearing areas, and 

smolt size and production? 

In the response, the watershed comparisons seem reasonable but the comparison is limited by a lack of 

detail on habitats in the systems, and there were some differences between streams in Tables 1 & 2.

5. How far from estimated carrying capacity are the current populations of anadromous fish?

The response concerning carrying capacity is adequate since we recognize that these assessments are 

incomplete.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

132

6. How will carcasses be dispersed throughout the watersheds? Will they be dispersed evenly, 

systematically or clumped in particular locations? How long are the treatment reaches?

The response describes a fixed loading rate limited by ODFW and DEQ, this does assume that you trust 

this loading rate as being appropriate.

7. The sponsors wish to achieve a saturation level of N15 enrichment. What is the evidence that these 

streams were saturated historically?

The response that saturation was based on past work (Bilby et al. 2001) is acceptable, but the assumption 

based on historical population sizes is dubious.

8. The sampling design needs to be described in more detail. Where will the biological samples be taken 

within each watershed? How many sampling locations in each watershed? How many samples will be 

taken at each location?

The response’s description of sampling methods is adequate.

9. What will be the impact of nutrient addition on fish species other than salmon such as cutthroat trout? 

Are there exotic species in these watersheds that could benefit from nutrient addition?

The response’s description of assessment of impacts on other fishes is very limited and inadequate.

10. How will the data be analyzed? 

The response on analytical methods is likely adequate.

Overall, the response is adequate and we note that the authors’ were careful to address each ISRP question. 

They have proposed an ambitious project with a reasonable design to really test nutrient additions at an 

ecosystem scale, but the question seems to be whether we are likely to really learn more by this approach 

than we have through past nutrient studies. This project is quite expensive and funding in this Province is 

likely to be limited. Consequently, while we find the project technically sound, we recommend a Fundable 

rating but at a lower priority.

CBFWA Review Comments:

NMFS has identified that this project is a BiOp project.

ProjectID: 31012

Leveraging Conservation Easements for Fish and Wildlife in the Willamette Basin

Sponsor: CPRC&D

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Willamette

FY03 Request: $68,090

5YR Estimate: $374,660

Short Description: Leveraging conservation easements for fish and wildlife protection in the Willamette 

Basin

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable as a pilot project, although the investigators should still provide more detail about program 

operation. The initial proposal and presentation emphasized the lack of trust in government as creating the 

need for the easement and acquisition program. The response has shifted its emphasis to focus on the 

benefits of perpetual easements over the 15-year leases. One benefit is the potential to protect larger areas 

along the riparian corridor than the 150 ft. limit of CREP. The response describes the project as a pilot that 

will demonstrate benefits to landowners, based on purchase of conservation easements on riparian land at 

full market value. It also hopes to demonstrate benefits that will lead to changes in CREP.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

133

The response does not detail the type of oversight that will occur – citing only that it will be modeled after 

the Maryland program described in an attached document. Monitoring is not described. Similarly, the 

response to guiding principles and standards presents a general goal/guiding principle, but does not provide 

detail on program standards.

Letters of support for the proposal are provided. The USDA letter suggests that should conservation 

easements on riparian land be purchased, the producer could still qualify for CREP rental payments for the 

same land under riparian management for 15 years. Is this correct? This is the type of question that the 

program standards should explicitly address. 

The budget for this project is small, and the potential benefits to fish of Willamette riparian corridor 

restoration are large. If it leads to effective changes in CREP the potential benefits extend beyond the 

Willamette to other areas of Oregon needing riparian restoration. 

ProjectID: 31025

Construct Fish Screen and Fish Passage Improvements at Lebanon Diversion Dam on South Santiam River

Sponsor: City of Albany, Oregon

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Willamette

FY03 Request: $420,000

5YR Estimate: $3,544,000

Short Description: Design and construct an intake fish screen to prevent fish from entering the 

unprotected Albany-Santiam Canal, and modify existing Lebanon Diversion Dam on South Santiam River 

to improve fish passage.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Do Not Fund

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable, the benefits to fish and wildlife are not adequately demonstrated in the proposal or the 

response. The project proposes to screen the intake of a water diversion canal and improve the 80-year-old 

fish passage facilities at the Lebanon dam. This project seems worthwhile and would be supported by 

NMFS but there is not adequate support regarding benefits to the FWP or any discussion of habitat 

available above the dam etc. The response provided was fairly complete but it appears that presence and 

survival of fish in the diversion canal is a matter of informed speculation rather than documentation. 

However, NMFS had indicated the importance to listed stocks of improvements in the fish ladder and 

installation of a fish screen. The problem here is that these water diversions do not seem to have been 

sampled for impact on fish!! Who is responsible for doing this? 

The actual cost to BPA would be about $1.7M over three years with the City paying the remainder (BPA 

contributing about 50%). We should also note that in the proposal, the City has been issued a 50-year 

hydro license (1998) and in 2001 received FERC approval for a two year extension to complete dam and 

fish screen improvements that were presumably included/required in the license (see Section 2 of proposal). 

Possibly, an alternative to direct funding could be that NMFS and BPA negotiate with the city for longterm financing of these facilities as a requirement of license. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

CBFWA supports this project for its benefits to fish; however, CBFWA does not support Bonneville 

funding for this action. Although Bonneville has funded passage and screens throughout the basin, this 

project directly generates income for the municipality and funding should be the responsibility of the 

operator.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

134

ProjectID: 31028

Replace Upper and Lower Bennett Dam Fish Ladders in the North Santiam River at Geren Island (Stayton 

Island)

Sponsor: City of Salem, Oregon, a municipal corporation

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Willamette

FY03 Request: $200,000

5YR Estimate: $400,000

Short Description: Replace two fish ladders to improve fish passage. Provide: updated fish 

collection/counting facility at each, supplemental flow at entrance of each fish ladder to improve attraction 

for fish, and additional entrances to fish ladders at base of dam.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Do Not Fund

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable 

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The sponsors propose to replace the ladders, with a provision for improving the fish 

trapping/counting facility. The response provides a lot of additional detail although not all ISRP questions 

are answered directly. For example, the answer to the question about whether the fishways meet NMFS 

standards provides information for why the fishways are outdated and described needed improvements, but 

does not directly state that the ladders do not meet NMFS standards. Similarly, the response does not 

directly explain why fish runs above the dams have remained relatively large. Unfortunately, as we noted 

for project #31025, there seems to be very little known about fish costs of the current environments. In this 

project however, the benefits to the listed fish could be substantial given that most spawning is above this 

point. The material provided on the field trip notes that a substantial portion of the Willamette return of 

winter and summer steelhead, and spring and fall chinook use the upper North Santiam as spawning and 

rearing habitat. Both winter steelhead and spring chinook are listed as threatened under the ESA. 

The project also involves excellent cost sharing for BPA investment (total cost $400,00 over two years, 

then finished). BPA would provide about 25% of project total cost and the local community contributes the 

balance.

CBFWA Review Comments:

CBFWA supports this project for its benefits to fish; however, CBFWA does not support Bonneville 

funding for this action. Although Bonneville has funded passage and screens throughout the basin, this 

project directly generates income for the municipality and funding should be the responsibility of the 

operator.

ProjectID: 31030

Santiam Water Control District Fish Screen and Passage Project

Sponsor: SWCD

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Willamette

FY03 Request: $350,000

5YR Estimate: $350,000

Short Description: Protect fisheries resources, especially threatened and endangered species by planning, 

design, construction, and maintenance of a fish screen, fish bypass and fish barrier on the SWCD canal (N. 

Santiam River) in Stayton, Oregon.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Do Not Fund

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable 

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The response provides additional information to explain why this screening project is considered 

high priority and the project has excellent cost sharing arrangements. The funds requested are for one year 

only. The plan to monitor performance of the screen appears to have the appropriate components although 
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

135

consultation with a biologist on ways to quantify changes in species and habitats would be desirable. As 

noted in the above two proposals (#31025, #31028), background data on fish seems very limited for some 

reason. This project could have significant benefits to fish given the volume of the intake and the upstream 

use of habitat by winter and summer steelhead, and spring and fall Chinook (noted in #31028). Among the 

Willamette proposals, this appears to be of high priority.

CBFWA Review Comments:

CBFWA supports this project for its benefits to fish; however, CBFWA does not support Bonneville 

funding for this action. Although Bonneville has funded passage and screens throughout the basin, this 

project directly generates income for the district and funding should be the responsibility of the operator.

ProjectID: 31018

Willamette Basin Riparian Project

Sponsor: Marion SWCD

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Willamette

FY03 Request: $784,765

5YR Estimate: $2,341,435

Short Description: Implement riparian buffering program using cost-share provided by USDA, state of 

Oregon and private landowners, including urban areas trials. Conduct restoration project planning and 

implementation with watershed councils, landowners and other interests.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable, agree with CBFWA that this is High Priority. This is a very thorough response addressing ISRP 

review questions. This proposal is to implement a riparian buffer program in the Willamette lowlands, with 

cost-share from USDA, Oregon, and private landowners. The project goal is to establish 500 planting 

projects on targeted streams over three years to redress riparian habitat problems on private lands. The 

projects will also address other causes of degraded habitat and fish populations beyond those remedied by 

the riparian planting. The overall objective is riparian restoration of the lowlands, where agriculture is the 

predominant land use, through immediate buffering and longer-term cooperative restoration planning. 

Good background to the problem is given. More than 90% of the riparian land in the basin is privately 

owned, valuable agricultural land. The basin holds 69% of Oregon’s population, expected to double in the 

next 25-50 years. Critical problems for fish habitat include water pollution, increased peak and reduced 

base flows, channel erosion, channelization, reduced habitat complexity and availability. Problems include 

riparian and aquatic habitat loss, sedimentation and erosion, water quality (temperature) and a loss of offchannel habitat. Much of the mainstem and its tributaries are 303(d) listed as impaired due to high summer

water temperatures.

The proposal provides a convincing rationale for the benefit of both riparian buffering and project-level 

restoration planning, and their connection to various basin-level needs identified in numerous plans. In 

addition to riparian buffering of agricultural lands through USDA incentive programs, the proposal also 

describes pilot project riparian buffering of rural residential and urban lands for which USDA CRP And 

CREP programs do not exist. 

The response provides good detail to address the question about target figures and how projects will be 

prioritized. It is clear that a systematic approach was taken to the development of the objective to cover 75 

stream miles. The response to the question about distributing enrollment is adequate, indicating a combined 

objective of achieving a demonstration effect and adding more explicit consideration of habitat 

connectivity. The explanation of “developing socioeconomic insights” is convincing.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

136

This has more than just the immediate value of planning and has the potential to influence landowners’ 

view of management of land for the benefit of fish and wildlife. The proposal describes an ambitious, wellnetworked project, coordinated among several Willamette Valley SWCD’s, with compelling leverage of 

funds.

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project should be considered High Priority; however, the budget appears high relative to available 

funds in this province. Scope and budget should be reduced.

ProjectID: 199607000

McKenzie River Focus Watershed Program Coordination and Habitat Restoration

Sponsor: MWC

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Willamette

FY03 Request: $325,000

5YR Estimate: $1,945,000

Short Description: Continue McKenzie River Focus Watershed Program Coordination. Develop, 

coordinate, plan, design, implement and monitor habitat protection, restoration and water quality projects; 

improve resource stewardship through public outreach and education.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable 

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. This proposal is to continue to coordinate the McKenzie River Watershed Program. BPA funds 

are used primarily for coordination, with other funds used for a variety of implementation projects. 

Activities include the design, implementation and monitoring of habitat and water quality projects, as well 

as outreach education. Having completed a number of baseline assessments, the Program plans to increase 

its protection and restoration activities in 2003. 

The Watershed Program appears to be well managed. The council’s activities are well connected to those of 

related groups and projects. A good history of projects and achievements is presented. However, 

proponents still need to demonstrate the big picture of all these separate activities being coordinated. The 

response provides a long description of the different groups conducting monitoring and the Council’s role 

in coordinating these efforts, but it is hard to get a sense from the response as to whether there is an overall 

systematic monitoring program that results from the sum of all the parts. Do the various monitoring efforts 

tell a story at the watershed level? Are data analyzed appropriately and consistently? Methods of analysis 

are not described. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

The reviewers are concerned about the longevity and certainty of the landowner agreements for habitat 

protection. New tasks have been added to this ongoing project that modifies its original scope.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

137

ProjectID: 31002

Wildlife Habitat Protection, Lower McKenzie Watershed (Jaqua)

Sponsor: TNC

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Willamette

FY03 Request: $2,321,025

5YR Estimate: $3,300,501

Short Description: Acquire a wildlife habitat conservation easement over 1240 acres of oak savanna and

woodlands, Douglas fir forests, and grasslands to benefit listed and target species in the Lower McKenzie 

River Watershed.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, Low to Medium Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable at low to medium priority. This proposal is to acquire conservation easements over 1240 acres to 

protect habitat for several bird and animal species. The land is in the Coburg Hills of the Lower McKenzie. 

An initial habitat assessment has been performed but detailed wildlife surveys have not yet been conducted. 

The site is currently subject to subdivision, threatening to fragment the habitat. Fish habitat protection 

afforded by this project would be minor. The project appears to be very expensive for the likely benefit. If 

it is possible to prioritize purchases, decision-makers should consider staggering funding for easement 

acquisition over several years. 

Responses to questions about price per acre and the definition of wildlife mitigation easement are adequate. 

The response puts the proposed site into the larger context of lower Willamette habitat conservation. The 

state of knowledge about the distribution and abundance of affected species is explained, particularly of the 

Fender’s Blue butterfly. Justification of the acquisition is explained, including the benefits to an 

endangered species, a threatened species and two species of concern. The restoration goals for the parcel 

remain unclear, but the response explains that developing a program to monitor progress toward goals is 

part of the project’s first-year activity.

The current proposal estimates the cost of the easement to be 90% of market value, with title retained by 

the present owner. It is still confusing as to why it is in the public’s interest to obtain easements rather than 

title. Responses to questions about the need to protect oak and pine forests and the need to provide 

monitoring are either missing or incomplete. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

This is a good property acquisition that may be focusing on a lower priority habitat type relative to the 

mitigation responsibilities of BPA.
ISRP 2002-11 Final Five Province Review 

138

ProjectID: 31007

Distribution and seasonal habitat use of ESA-listed salmonid species in City of Portland tributary streams

Sponsor: COP

Province: Lower Columbia

Subbasin: Willamette

FY03 Request: $62,000

5YR Estimate: $124,000

Short Description: Determine the distribution and seasonal habitat use of listed salmonids in City of 

Portland watersheds. Use information to guide development of a recovery plan, determine necessary 

protective measures, and monitor effectiveness of protective measures.

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments:

Fundable, this is technically sound and the response is thorough. The response is detailed and responsive to 

most questions including those on sampling design and data analysis. Although the point they make of not 

associating fish presence with habitat condition is somewhat confusing. Isn’t this what you would want to 

do to assess likely success of habitat restoration? The description of data analysis is still not detailed, 

resting on references to calculating IBIs. The proposed IBI, although adequately described in the response, 

is not very useful in reviewers’ opinion, especially in such highly disturbed environments. They need to reconsider this use. 

The ISRP did not ask and the proposal still does not make clear to reviewers what effect protecting some 

small fragments of urban streams will have on the restoration of salmon to the basin. It’s important to the 

city, in the name of preserving some natural stream functioning that’s left, and the protection of listed 

stocks may require it, but, from the information provided, it does not appear to offer substantial restoration 

of salmon habitat or substantial restoration of stocks. However, for the amount requested, the project is 

likely worth the investment to support the city’s interest in conservation and land management -- a policy 

issue and choice. 

CBFWA Review Comments:

There is an outstanding question of whether or not this project is a BPA mitigation responsibility relative to 

impacts of the hydrosystem. 
Index of Proposals by Project ID

139

Project Page Project Page Project Page Project Page

29001 74 29043 52 31016 123 33004 43

29002 64 29044 66 31017 127 33005 40

29003 93 29045 84 31018 135 33006 39

29004 92 29046 60 31019 119 33007 40

29005 90 29050 87 31020 128 33008 44

29006 71 29051 89 31021 119 33009 39

29007 87 29052 53 31022 130 33010 45

29008 85 29053 59 31023 130 33011 46

29009 49 29054 78 31024 120 33012 45

29010 61 29055 78 31025 133 33013 45

29011 94 29056 77 31027 96 198815600 25

29012 67 30001 105 31028 134 199107800 125

29013 88 30002 106 31029 129 199201000 40

29014 54 30003 97 31030 134 199205900 124

29015 76 30004 116 31031 115 199206800 122

29016 86 30005 100 31032 102 199306000 114

29017 72 30006 99 31033 121 199405300 96

29018 69 30007 109 31034 112 199405400 37

29019 91 30008 97 32001 26 199501500 25

29020 61 30009 111 32002 29 199505700 38

29021 73 30010 107 32003 28 199505701 15

29022 82 30011 117 32004 30 199505702 41

29023 84 30012 98 32005 37 199505703 23

29024 50 30013 98 32006 20 199604000 56

29025 66 30014 111 32007 21 199604200 79

29026 55 30015 112 32008 24 199607000 136

29027 58 30016 113 32009 17 199609400 90

29028 59 30017 107 32010 29 199701100 24

29029 92 30018 111 32011 18 199701900 35

29030 63 31001 100 32012 22 199800200 27

29031 70 31002 137 32013 19 199801400 103

29032 75 31003 95 32014 27 199902500 121

29033 72 31004 131 32015 20 200000100 81

29034 64 31005 127 32016 35 200000200 55

29035 94 31006 102 32017 36 200000900 32

29036 65 31007 138 32018 34 200001200 101

29037 62 31010 126 32019 33 200001300 86

29038 71 31011 126 32020 16 200001400 95

29039 57 31012 132 32021 16 200001600 125

29040 88 31013 123 33001 42 200002700 31

29041 51 31014 117 33002 44 200007900 21

29042 81 31015 118 33003 46 200105300 101
Index of Proposals by Project ID

140

________________________________________

________________________________________

w:\em\ww\isrp\1 final isrp reports\isrp 2002-11 final 5 province review.doc