Independent Scientific Review Panel

for the Northwest Power Planning Council

851 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1100

Portland, Oregon 97204

isrp@nwppc.org

Preliminary Review

of

Fiscal Year 2002 Project Proposals

for the Mountain Snake and

Blue Mountain Provinces

ISRP 2001-9

September 28, 2001 
Review Team

Jack Griffith

Susan Hanna

Nancy Huntly

William Liss

Lyman McDonald

John D. McIntyre

Brian Riddell

Bruce Ward

Ray White

Richard N. Williams
i

ISRP Preliminary Review of Fiscal Year 2002 Proposals

for the Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Provinces

Index of Proposals by Project ID .........................................................................................ii

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

Response Instructions.......................................................................................................... 1

Recommendation Categories: Who Needs to Respond?..................................................... 2

Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting of Results............................................................. 4

Preliminary Recommendation and Comments on Each Proposal....................................... 9

Multiple Province and Grouped Proposals.................................................................... 9

Bull Trout and Related Resident Fish Proposals...................................................................................... 12

Assessment of spring/summer chinook habitat in the Grande Ronde and Salmon subbasins......... 19

Four-Step Safety-Net Process and Associated Proposals ....................................................................... 20

Idaho Supplementation Studies................................................................................................................... 24

Salmon River Subbasin Proposals............................................................................... 31

Redfish Lake Sockeye Program................................................................................................................... 43

Salmon River Subbasin Habitat Restoration and Protection Proposals ............................................... 45

Salmon Basin Soil and Water Conservation Proposals .......................................................................... 46

Lower Salmon Habitat Protection and Restoration Proposals ............................................................... 52

Clearwater Subbasin Proposals................................................................................... 58

Blue Mountain Province Proposals............................................................................. 99

Asotin............................................................................................................................................................... 99

Snake River Hells Canyon Proposals.......................................................................................................105

Imnaha ...........................................................................................................................................................112

Grande Ronde...............................................................................................................................................114

Northeast Oregon Hatchery Program.......................................................................................................139
Index of Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Proposals Sorted by Project ID

ii

Index of Proposals by Project ID

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY02 Request 3 YR Estimate Response

Needed?

Page

27001 Asotin County Riparian Buffer and

Couse and Tenmile Creeks Protection

and Implementation Project

Asotin County

Conservation District

Asotin $294,200 $882,600 Yes 101

27002 Assess Salmonids in the Asotin Creek

Watershed

Washington

Department of Fish and

Wildlife

Asotin $316,885 $775,915 Yes 104

27003 Characterize and Assess WildlifeHabitat Types and Structural

Conditions for Subbasins within the

Blue Mountain Province

Northwest Habitat

Institute

Grande Ronde $201,175 $312,145 No -

Fundable in

Part

9

27004 Grande Ronde and Imnaha Stream

Channel Complexity and Fish Passage

Barrier Inventory, Prioritization and

Remediation

Oregon Watershed

Enhancement Board

Grande Ronde $191,580 $753,540 Yes 131

27005 Increase CREP Enrollment and

Enhance Riparian Protections in the

Grande Ronde and Imnaha basins

Oregon Watershed

Enhancement Board

Grande Ronde $170,880 $521,720 Yes 131

27006 Establishing Baseline Key Ecological

Functions of Fish and Wildlife for

Subbasin Planning

Northwest Habitat

Institute & WDFW

Grande Ronde $153,500 $303,000 No - Not

Fundable

11

27007 Assessment of spring/summer chinook

salmon habitat within the Grande

Ronde Subbasin.

USDA Forest Service,

BLM, USGS, Utah

State University

Grande Ronde $205,000 $235,000 Yes 19

27008 Grande Ronde River Riparian

Restoration

BLM Grande Ronde $307,730 $768,020 Yes 129

27009 SSHIAP - Blue Mountain Province WDFW Asotin $200,000 $260,000 Yes 103

27010 Snake River Hells Canyon Tributary

Enhancements

Idaho Department of

Fish and Game

Snake Hells

Canyon

$101,000 $2,048,000 No - Not

Fundable

111
Index of Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Proposals Sorted by Project ID

iii

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY02 Request 3 YR Estimate Response

Needed?

Page

27011 Lookingglass Creek land purchase for

watershed protection (spawning and

rearing habitat continuity and water

quality at Lookingglass Hatchery).

Confederated Tribes of

the Umatilla Indian

Reservation

Grande Ronde $2,263,400 $2,274,400 Yes 130

27012 Restore and Enhance Grande Ronde

Valley Deciduous Riparian Habitat

Oregon Department

Fish and Wildlife

Grande Ronde $156,000 $551,000 Yes 125

27013 Grande Ronde River Stream

Restoration - La Grande, Oregon

Union County and

Union Soil and Water

Conservation District

Grande Ronde $816,080 $841,080 Yes 126

27014 Protect and Restore the Asotin Creek

Watershed

Nez Perce Tribe Asotin $121,000 $374,000 Yes 102

27015 Develop Long-Term Management Plan

for Snake River (Hells Canyon Reach)

White Sturgeon

IDFG - IOSC Snake Hells

Canyon

$116,500 $161,500 No - Not

Fundable

107

27016 Evaluate the effects of hyporheic

discharge on egg pocket water

temperture in Snake River fall chinook

salmon spawning areas

Pacific Northwest

National Laboratory

Snake Hells

Canyon

$154,136 $691,776 Yes 110

27017 Bull trout population assessment and

life history characteristics in

association with habitat quality and

land use: template for recovery

planning.

Utah Cooperative Fish

and Wildlife Research

Unit, USGS

Imnaha $469,792 $1,009,568 Yes 14

27018 Oregon Plan Blue Mountain Province

Fish Screening/Fish Passage.

Oregon Department of

Fish and Wildlife

Grande Ronde $153,314 $153,314 No -

Fundable

132

27019 Adult Salmon Abundance Monitoring NPT/Pacific Northwest

National Laboratory

Grande Ronde $531,182 $1,688,213 Yes 137

27020 Grande Ronde Subbasin Water Right

Acquisition Program

Oregon Water Trust Grande Ronde $62,620 $205,322 Yes 117

27021 Adult Steelhead Status Monitoring -

Imnaha River Subbasin

Nez Perce Tribe Imnaha $1,055,449 $2,564,551 Yes 113
Index of Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Proposals Sorted by Project ID

iv

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY02 Request 3 YR Estimate Response

Needed?

Page

27022 Wallowa County Culvert Inventory Nez Perce Tribe Grande Ronde $170,603 $548,619 No -

Fundable

133

27023 Precious Lands Wildlife Habitat

Expansion

Nez Perce Tribe Grande Ronde $3,373,974 $10,151,474 No -

Fundable

115

27024 Life history strategies in

Oncorhynchus mykiss: interactions

between anadromous and resident

forms.

Oregon Department of

Fish and Wildlife

Grande Ronde $237,474 $684,182 Yes 136

27025 Acquire South Fork Asotin Creek

Property

Rocky Mountain Elk

Foundation

Asotin $3,489,500 $3,559,500 No -

Fundable

105

28001 Evaluate Factors Influencing Bias and

Precision of Chinook Salmon Redd

Counts

USDA Forest ServiceRocky Mountain

Research Station

Salmon $198,738 $626,522 Yes 36

28002 Fluvial Bull Trout Migration and Life

History Investigations in the upper

Salmon River Subbasin

Shoshone-Bannock

Tribes

Salmon $163,440 $451,440 No - Not

Fundable

16

28003 Characterize and Assess WildlifeHabitat Types and Structural

Conditions for Subbasins within the

Mountain Snake Province

Northwest Habitat

Institute

Salmon $375,935 $1,118,197 No -

Fundable in

Part

9

28004 Lawyer Creek Subwatershed-Steelhead

Trout Habitat Improvement Project

Lewis Soil

Conservation District

Clearwater $246,500 $679,500 Yes 58

28005 Assessment of spring/summer chinook

salmon habitat within the Salmon

River Subbasin.

USDA Forest Service,

BLM, USGS, Utah

State University

Salmon $395,000 $440,000 Yes 19

28006 Tag and evaluate PIT-tag retention in

sub-yearling chinook salmon

Biomark, Inc. Salmon $82,044 $82,044 Yes 41

28007 Causes and effects of nonnative trout

invasions in the Salmon and

Clearwater River subbasins

USDA Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

Salmon $64,900 $676,900 Yes 18

28008 Riparian Conservation Easement

Purchase of Scarrow Property on Lake

Creek a Tributary to the Secesh River,

Idaho.

Idaho Department of

Fish and Game and

Idaho Office of Species

Conservation

Salmon $68,500 $68,500 Yes 52
Index of Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Proposals Sorted by Project ID

v

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY02 Request 3 YR Estimate Response

Needed?

Page

28009 Smolt Condition and Adult Returns:

An Indirect Method of Assessing the

Potential Mitigation Benefits of

Nutrient Enhancement Projects

IDFG - IOSC Salmon $44,600 $44,600 Yes 40

28010 Nez Perce Salmon River Terrestrial Nez Perce Tribe Salmon $2,801,996 $8,826,742 Yes 54

28011 Incidental Mortality in Selective Sport

Fisheries

IDFG - IOSC Salmon $200,000 $700,000 No - Not

Fundable

41

28012 Four-Step Planning to Identify SafetyNet Projects for Idaho SteelheadIDFG - IOSC Salmon $206,200 $656,200 Yes 22

28013 RENOVATE SELWAY FALLS

ANADROMOUS FISH PASSAGE

TUNNEL

IDFG - IOSC Clearwater $344,700 $344,700 Yes 60

28014 Bull trout population assessment and

life history characteristics in

association with habitat quality and

land use: template for recovery

planning.

Utah Cooperative Fish

and Wildlife Research

Unit, USGS

Salmon $469,792 $1,009,568 Yes 14

28015 Benefit/Risk Analysis to Promote

Long-Term Persistence of Chinook

Salmon in the Middle Fork Salmon

River

Nez Perce Tribe Salmon $156,726 $181,726 Yes 22

28016 RESTORATION OF THE YANKEE

FORK SALMON RIVER

Custer Soil & Water

Conservation District,

IOSC

Salmon $799,785 $3,213,505 Yes 51

28017 Monitoring the Selway Falls

renovation project for passage of

spring chinook salmon and steelhead

Pacific Northwest

National Laboratory

Clearwater $134,350 $413,992 Yes 61

28018 Lower Salmon River Tributary

Protection and Enhancement

Idaho Department of

Fish and Game

Salmon $101,000 $1,048,000 Yes 53

28019 Improve Stream Habitat by Reducing

Discharge from Animal Feeding

Operations

Idaho Department of

Environmental Quality

- IOSC

Salmon $2,026,000 $2,026,000 Yes 57
Index of Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Proposals Sorted by Project ID

vi

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY02 Request 3 YR Estimate Response

Needed?

Page

28020 Nez Perce Tribe Harvest Monitoring

Program

Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater $326,646 $1,030,006 Yes 62

28021 Lower Clearwater Habitat

Enhancement Project

Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater $1,428,000 $10,026,000 Yes 63

28022 Evaluate Bull Trout Life History In

Dworshak Reservoir, N.F. Clearwater

River Drainage, ID

IDFG - IOSC Clearwater $208,850 $516,850 Yes 15

28023 Evaluate and Control Brook Trout

Populations – Addressing Competition

and Hybridization Threats in the

Clearwater River Drainage, Idaho.

Idaho Department of

Fish and Game and

Idaho Office of

Species Conservation

Clearwater $183,800 $547,600 Yes 16

28024 Dworshak Dam Impacts Assessment

and Fisheries Investigation

IDFG - IOSC Clearwater $468,801 $1,085,801 Yes 64

28025 Potlatch River Watershed Restoration Latah Soil and Water

Conservation District

Clearwater $505,125 $1,302,625 Yes 65

28026 Develop HGMP’s for LSRCP

Programs to address artificial

production reforms identified in the

FCRPS Biological Opinion and other

regional processes.

US Fish and Wildlife

Service, Lower Snake

River Compensation

Plan

Salmon $856,292 $1,755,399 No - NA 23

28029 Restore Lawyer Creek Habitat

Targeting Steelhead and Chinook

Salmon

Clearwater Economic

Development

Association

Clearwater $342,750 $1,895,311 Yes 66

28030 Salmon River Native Resident Fish

Assessment

IDFG - IOSC Salmon $250,000 $650,000 Yes 17

28031 Evaluation of Unclipped Hatchery

Steelhead Released in the Clearwater

and Salmon River Basins

U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service

Clearwater $484,993 $1,038,029 Yes 67

28032 ASSESSMENT OF A-RUN

STEELHEAD POPULATIONS IN

THE CLEARWATER RIVER BASIN

Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater $686,800 $1,723,690 Yes 68

28033 Monitoring and evaluating coho

salmon reintroduction in the

Clearwater River Basin

Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater $676,752 $1,882,256 Yes 70
Index of Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Proposals Sorted by Project ID

vii

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY02 Request 3 YR Estimate Response

Needed?

Page

28034 Chinook Salmon Smolt Survival and

Smolt to Adult Return Rate

Quantification, South Fork Salmon

River, Idaho

Nez Perce Tribe Salmon $660,000 $1,890,000 Yes 37

28035 GEOMORPHIC CONTROLS ON

WATERSHED-SCALE

AVAILABILITY OF CHINOOK

SALMON SPAWNING HABITAT IN

THE SALMON RIVER

University of Idaho,

USDA Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

Salmon $133,625 $400,875 Yes 46

28036 Holistic Restoration of Critical Habitat

on Non-federal Lands in the

Pahsimeroi Watershed, Idaho

Custer Soil & Water

Conservation District /

IOSC

Salmon $2,606,341 $7,926,041 Yes 48

28037 Holistic Restoration of Critical Habitat

on Non-federal Lands in the Lemhi

Watershed, Idaho

Lemhi Soil & Water

Conservation District /

IOSC

Salmon $3,238,682 $9,839,182 Yes 49

28038 Holistic Restoration of Critical Habitat

on Non-federal Lands, East Fork

Salmon Watershed, Idaho

Custer Soil & Water

Conservation District /

IOSC

Salmon $2,608,084 $7,879,984 Yes 48

28039 Holistic Restoration of Habitat on

Non-federal Lands, Middle SalmonPanther Watershed, Idaho

Lemhi Soil & Water

Conservation District /

IOSC

Salmon $1,863,326 $5,688,526 Yes 49

28040 Holistic Restoration of Critical Habitat

on Non-federal Lands, Upper Salmon

Watershed, Idaho

Custer Soil & Water

Conservation District /

IOSC

Salmon $2,567,545 $7,847,045 Yes 48

28041 Dworshak Zooplankton Entrainment Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater $434,463 $1,182,926 No - Not

Fundable

70

28042 Timing and location of spawning by

pure and introgressed cutthroat trout in

the North Fork Clearwater River

Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater $311,878 $937,698 No - Not

Fundable

71

28043 Crooked River Ecosystem Assessment

at the Watershed Scale

Nez Perce Tribe

Fisheries/Watershed

Clearwater $131,213 $601,213 Yes 72

28044 Protect and Restore Deer Creek

Watershed

Nez Perce Tribe

Fisheries/Watershed

Salmon $155,213 $669,213 Yes 52
Index of Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Proposals Sorted by Project ID

viii

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY02 Request 3 YR Estimate Response

Needed?

Page

28045 Evaluating stream habitat using the

Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries/Watershed

Watershed Monitoring and Evaluation

Plan

Nez Perce Tribe

Fisheries and

Watershed

Clearwater $381,108 $1,190,708 Yes 73

28046 Impacts of Salmon Carcasses on

Chinook Salmon and Watershed

Restoration in Subbasins of the

Clearwater River

Nez Perce Tribe

Fisheries and

Watershed

Clearwater $179,002 $756,502 Yes 74

28047 Restore and Protect Red River

Watershed

Nez Perce Tribe

Fisheries Watershed

Clearwater $199,567 $770,962 Yes 75

28048 Protect and Restore Crooked Fork

Creek to Colt Killed Analysis Area

Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater $423,365 $1,557,065 Yes 76

28049 Restore and Protect Slate Creek

Watershed

Nez Perce Tribe

Fisheries Watershed

Salmon $231,841 $966,099 Yes 55

28050 Protect and Restore Little Salmon

River

Nez Perce Tribe

Fisheries/Watershed

Salmon $262,896 $560,538 Yes 54

28051 Assess and Monitor Steelhead in the

Middle Fork Salmon River Subbasin

Nez Perce Tribe Salmon $416,147 $1,250,402 Yes 39

28052 Adult Snake River steelhead

monitoring in the South Fork Salmon

River Basin.

NPT/Pacific Northwest

National Laboratory

Salmon $708,000 $1,677,000 Yes 38

28054 Evaluation of Pisces Fish Protective

Guidance and Monitoring System

Balaton Power, Inc. Salmon $1,060,000 $1,060,000 Yes 40

28055 Four-Step Safety-Net Plan for Upper

Lochsa River B-Run Steelhead

Columbia River InterTribal Fish

Commission

Clearwater $73,422 $89,220 Yes 23

28056 Four-Step Safety-Net Plan for South

Fork Salmon River B-Run Steelhead

Columbia River InterTribal Fish

Commission

Salmon $73,422 $89,220 Yes 22

28057 Four-Step Safety-Net Plan for Lower

Salmon River A-Run Steelhead

Columbia River InterTribal Fish

Commission

Salmon $73,422 $89,220 Yes 21
Index of Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Proposals Sorted by Project ID

ix

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY02 Request 3 YR Estimate Response

Needed?

Page

28058 Restore Fish Passage and Habitat in

the Upper East Fork of the South Fork

of the Salmon River

IDFG - IOSC Salmon $842,000 $894,000 Yes 56

28059 Restoring anadromous fish habitat in

the Lapwai Creek watershed.

Nez Perce Soil and

Water Conservation

District

Clearwater $372,060 $961,116 Yes 77

28060 Assess Stream Quality for Salmonid

Recovery in the Lower Clearwater

Subbasin

Nez Perce Soil and

Water Conservation

District

Clearwater $95,148 $145,648 Yes 78

198335000 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater $3,485,000 $10,245,000 Yes 79

198335003 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Monitoring

And Evaluation

Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater $1,884,430 $6,087,194 Yes 80

198402500 GRANDE RONDE BASIN FISH

HABITAT ENHANCEMENT

PROJECT

OREGON

DEPARTMENT OF

FISH AND

WILDLIFE

Grande Ronde $456,416 $1,438,850 Yes 119

198740700 Dworshak Integrated Rule

Curves/M&E

Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater $201,291 $541,291 No - Not

Fundable

81

198805301 Northeast Oregon Hatchery Master

Plan

Nez Perce Tribe Grande Ronde $2,714,740 $24,232,740 Yes 142

198805305 Northeast Oregon Hatcheries

Implementation (ODFW)

Oregon Department of

Fish and Wildlife

Grande Ronde $79,376 $248,187 Yes 144

198909800 Idaho Supplementation Studies IDFG - IOSC Salmon $996,726 $2,971,726 Yes 29

198909801 Evaluate Supplementation Studies in

Idaho Rivers (ISS)

USFWS - Idaho

Fishery Resource

Office

Clearwater $126,320 $406,320 Yes 29

198909802 Evaluate Salmon Supplementation

Studies in Idaho Rivers- Nez Perce

Tribe

Nez Perce Tribe Salmon $676,476 $1,998,214 Yes 29

198909803 Salmon Supplementation Studies in

Idaho- Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Shoshone-Bannock

Tribes

Salmon $213,569 $683,658 Yes 30

199005500 Steelhead Supplementation Studies in

Idaho Rivers

IDFG - IOSC Clearwater $686,307 $2,009,759 Yes 30
Index of Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Proposals Sorted by Project ID

x

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY02 Request 3 YR Estimate Response

Needed?

Page

199102800 Monitoring smolt migrations of wild

Snake River sp/sum chinook salmon

National Marine

Fisheries Service

Salmon $350,000 $1,050,000 Yes 34

199107100 Snake River Sockeye Salmon Habitat

and Limnological Research

Shoshone-Bannock

Tribes

Salmon $441,369 $1,370,558 Yes 44

199107200 Redfish Lake Sockeye Salmon Captive

Broodstock Program

IDFG - IOSC Salmon $853,229 $3,044,520 Yes 43

199107300 Idaho Natural Production Monitoring

and Evaluation

IDFG - IOSC Salmon $831,000 $2,526,000 Yes 32

199202601 Implement the Grande Ronde Model

Watershed Program Administration

and Habitat Restoration Projects

Grande Ronde Model

Watershed Program

Grande Ronde $1,376,000 $5,088,000 Yes 121

199202603 Upper Salmon Basin Watershed

Project Administration /

Implementation Support

Idaho Soil

Conservation

Commission and IOSC

Salmon $285,364 $870,364 Yes 46

199202604 Investigate Life History of Spring

Chinook Salmon and Summer

Steelhead in the Grande Ronde River

Basin and Monitor Salmonid

Populations and Habitat

Oregon Department of

Fish and Wildlife

Grande Ronde $1,412,651 $4,393,253 Yes 134

199204000 Redfish Lake Sockeye Salmon Captive

Broodstock Rearing and Research

National Marine

Fisheries Service

Salmon $1,600,000 $3,191,200 No - NA 44

199303501 Enhance Fish, Riparian, and Wildlife

Habitat Within the Red River

Watershed

Idaho County Soil and

Water Conservation

District

Clearwater $561,000 $1,666,000 Yes 81

199401500 Idaho Fish Screen Improvement IDFG - IOSC Salmon $1,000,000 $3,148,050 No -

Fundable

45

199401805 Continued Coordination and

Implementation of Asotin Creek

Watershed Projects

Asotin County

Conservation District

Asotin $297,285 $990,285 Yes 99

199403900 Watershed Restoration Planner Nez Perce Tribe Grande Ronde $64,289 $202,670 Yes 122

199405000 Salmon River Habitat Enhancement M

& E

Shoshone-Bannock

Tribes

Salmon $249,500 $755,000 Yes 57
Index of Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Proposals Sorted by Project ID

xi

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY02 Request 3 YR Estimate Response

Needed?

Page

199405402 Characterize the Migratory Patterns,

Population Structure, Food Habits,

Abundance of Bull Trout from

Subbasins in the Blue Mountain

Province.

Oregon Department of

Fish and Wildlife

Grande Ronde $670,804 $1,946,270 Yes 13

199501300 Resident Fish Substitution Program Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater $243,355 $1,072,186 Yes 84

199604300 Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation

Enhancement Project

Nez Perce Tribe Salmon $4,410,100 $6,740,688 Yes 31

199607702 Protect and Restore Lolo Creek

Watershed

Nez Perce Tribe

Fisheries Watershed

Program

Clearwater $502,192 $1,924,921 Yes 87

199607703 Protecting and Restoring the

Waw'aatamnima (Fishing)(Squaw)

Creek to 'Imnaamatnoon (Legendary

Bear)(Papoose) Creek Watersheds

Analysis Area

Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater $489,300 $1,518,500 Yes 88

199607705 Restore McComas Meadows/Meadow

Creek Watershed

Nez Perce Tribe

Fisheries Watershed

Program

Clearwater $573,832 $1,221,301 Yes 89

199608000 NE Oregon Wildlife Mitigation Project

-- "Precious Lands"

Nez Perce Tribe Grande Ronde $439,803 $1,279,903 Yes 114

199608300 CTUIR Grande Ronde Subbasin

Restoration

Confederated Tribes

Umatilla Indian

Reservation

Grande Ronde $200,000 $585,000 No -

Fundable

124

199608600 Clearwater Focus Program Idaho Soil

Conservation

Commission

Clearwater $103,626 $310,878 Yes 90

199700100 Captive Rearing Project for Salmon

River Chinook Salmon

IDFG - IOSC Salmon $750,482 $4,050,482 Yes 42

199700900 Evaluate Potential Means of

Rebuilding Sturgeon Populations in the

Snake River Between Lower Granite

and Hells Canyon Dams

Nez Perce Tribe Snake Hells

Canyon

$290,510 $1,065,510 Yes 105

199701501 Imnaha Smolt Survival and Smolt to

Adult Return Rate Quantification

Nez Perce Tribe Imnaha $466,802 $2,334,258 Yes 112
Index of Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Proposals Sorted by Project ID

xii

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY02 Request 3 YR Estimate Response

Needed?

Page

199702500 Implement The Wallowa County/Nez

Perce Tribe Salmon Habitat Recovery

Plan

Nez Perce Tribe Grande Ronde $45,675 $132,025 Yes 123

199703000 Chinook Salmon Adult Abundance

Monitoring

Nez Perce

Tribe/Pacific

Northwest National

Laboratory

Salmon $1,033,000 $2,719,000 Yes 34

199703800 Preserve Salmonid Gametes and

Establish a Regional Salmonid

Germplasm Repository

Nez Perce Tribe Salmon $1,279,000 $4,383,000 Yes 23

199706000 Clearwater Subbasin Focus Watershed

Program - NPT

Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater $218,000 $702,000 Yes 90

199800702 Grande Ronde Supplementation:

Lostine River O&M and M&E

Nez Perce Tribe Grande Ronde $609,302 $1,902,671 No -

Fundable

145

199800703 Facility O&M And Program M&E For

Grande Ronde Spring Chinook Salmon

and Summer Steelhead

Confederated Tribes of

the Umatilla Indian

Reservation

Grande Ronde $702,010 $2,405,288 Yes 146

199800704 Northeast Oregon Hatcheries

Implementation (ODFW)

Oregon Department of

Fish and Wildlife

Grande Ronde $206,048 $633,197 Yes 144

199801001 Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook

Captive Broodstock Program

Oregon Department of

Fish and Wildlife

Grande Ronde $739,096 $2,329,994 No -

Fundable

147

199801003 Spawning distribution of Snake River

fall chinook salmon

U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service

Snake Hells

Canyon

$174,162 $435,962 Yes 107

199801004 Monitor and EvaluateYearling Snake

River Fall Chinook Released Upstream

Of Lower Granite Dam

Nez Perce Tribe Snake Hells

Canyon

$330,241 $1,020,741 Yes 108

199801005 Pittsburg Landing (199801005),Capt.

John Rapids (199801007), Big Canyon

(199801008) Fall Chinook

Acclimation Facilities

Nez Perce Tribe Snake Hells

Canyon

$722,000 $2,246,000 No -

Fundable

109

199801006 Captive Broodstock Artificial

Propagation

Nez Perce Tribe Grande Ronde $170,177 $526,000 Yes 148
Index of Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Proposals Sorted by Project ID

xiii

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin FY02 Request 3 YR Estimate Response

Needed?

Page

199901400 Little Canyon Creek SubwatershedSteelhead Trout Habitat Improvement

Project

Lewis Soil

Conservation District

Clearwater $236,500 $649,500 Yes 92

199901500 Restoring Anadromous Fish Habitat in

Big Canyon Watershed

Nez Perce Soil and

Water Conservation

District

Clearwater $193,452 $600,356 Yes 93

199901600 Protect and Restore Big Canyon Creek

Watershed

Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater $355,000 $1,588,300 Yes 94

199901700 Protect and Restore Lapwai Creek

Watershed

Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater $436,600 $1,669,900 Yes 95

199901800 Characterize and quantify residual

steelhead in the Clearwater River,

Idaho

U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service

Clearwater $101,950 $134,950 Yes 96

199901900 Holistic Restoration of the Twelvemile

Reach of the Salmon River near

Challis, Idaho

Custer Soil & Water

Conservation District /

IOSC

Salmon $1,844,000 $5,158,000 Yes 49

199902000 Analyze the Persistence and Spatial

Dynamics of Snake River Chinook

Salmon

USDA Forest ServiceRocky Mountain

Research Station

Salmon $112,410 $351,242 Yes 35

200002100 Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites -

Oregon, Ladd Marsh WMA Additions

Oregon Department of

Fish and Wildlife

Grande Ronde $193,185 $658,685 Yes 116

200002800 Evaluate Status of Pacific Lamprey in

the Clearwater River Drainage, Idaho

Idaho Department of

Fish and Game and

Idaho Office of Species

Conservation

Clearwater $144,550 $464,550 No -

Fundable

96

200003400 Protect and Restore The North Lochsa

Face Analysis Area Watersheds

Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater $285,835 $996,862 Yes 97

200003500 Rehabilitate Newsome Creek

Watershed - South Fork Clearwater

River

Nez Perce Tribe

Fisheries Watershed

Clearwater $287,732 $1,424,334 Yes 98

200003600 Protect & Restore Mill Creek Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater $105,560 $482,511 Yes 98
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

1

ISRP Preliminary Review of Fiscal Year 2002 Proposals

for the Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Provinces

Introduction

This report provides preliminary comments and recommendations of the Independent

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

Year 2002 funding in the Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Provinces. It provides

project sponsors and the public an opportunity to respond to ISRP concerns before the

ISRP makes its final recommendation to the Council on December 21, 2001. This report

also provides information to the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority for its use

in project prioritization.

The review process to develop these preliminary recommendations and comments

included several elements. Each proposal was reviewed by at least three 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 combination of the discussions

and oral presentations was invaluable in identifying potential issues and clarifying the

nature of the projects. The site visits and presentations were well organized and

informative. The ISRP was privileged to witness this year’s strong run of fish spawning

in the wild and appreciates the project sponsors’ effort during the busy field season.

With the exception of a programmatic statement on monitoring, this report does not

include a programmatic section with identification of general issues that cut across

subbasins and provinces. Although many such issues arose, the ISRP had insufficient

time to reach consensus recommendations on these broad issues. The ISRP plans to

include discussion of programmatic issues in later reports. In addition, the ISRP was

unable to complete the reviews of Lower Snake River Compensation Plan proposals and

the Northeast Oregon Hatchery Step 2 documents. The ISRP plans to complete the

preliminary review of those projects in late October 2001.

Response Instructions

This preliminary report marks the completion of the first step in the project selection

process. As stated above, project proponents and the public have the opportunity to

respond to this report. Responses should focus on the technical comments, answer all

review questions, and clarify uncertain information. Responses should be formatted to

address concerns point by point, clearly identifying each concern and providing a

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

on the front page of the response. Electronic documents should be named the project ID;

e.g. “2222response.doc” and email messages should contain the project ID in the subject

line.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

2

Important: If the response includes any change in the budget, the project sponsors must

resubmit Part I of the proposal form with a revised budget section.

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

later than 5 p.m., October 12, 2001. Please email responses and comments to

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

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

Northwest Power Planning Council

Attention: Kendra Phillips

Response to ISRP

851 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1100

Portland, OR 97204

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

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

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

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

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

eschrepel@nwppc.org.

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

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

annual implementation work plan. The work plan is scheduled for release November 30,

2001. For more details on the CBFWA process and province reviews in general see

www.cbfwa.org.

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

provide a second and final report to the Northwest Power Planning Council by December

21, 2001. Thereafter, the Council will make its funding recommendations to Bonneville.

It is anticipated that the Council’s funding recommendations will be made in January or

February of 2002.

Recommendation Categories: Who Needs to Respond?

Preliminary recommendations and comments are provided for each of the 142 proposals

submitted. These recommendations are split into three basic categories: 1) fundable,

further ISRP response review is not needed (10 proposals; 2 were fundable in part); 2) a

response review is needed (120 proposals); and 3) do not fund, a response is not

warranted (8 proposals). Two proposals were considered not amenable to scientific

review.

Proposals receiving “a response review is needed” will be recommended as “fundable”

by the ISRP only if a response is provided that adequately addresses reviewer comments.

Although the ISRP will not review responses to those proposals that received a “do not

fund, a response is not warranted,” project sponsors are welcome to provide comments to

the Council.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

3

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.

For final recommendations, 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.

Some “fundable” proposals may 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.

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 proposal for an ongoing project that may offer

benefits to fish but does not include provisions for monitoring and evaluation or report

past results. Another 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. 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
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

4

have the potential for deleterious effects on native populations. The ISRP notes that

numerous “not fundable” projects propose needed actions or are an integral part of a

watershed effort, but the proposed methods, tasks and objectives are not scientifically

sound. The ISRP comments are intended to indicate areas where serious remedial effort,

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

cases, an RFP is warranted to address the needed action.

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

will receive 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.

Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting of Results

This statement on monitoring and evaluation (M&E) should be considered a work in

progress. It is included here because the issue of adequate monitoring arises in many

proposal reviews.

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. Both monitoring and evaluation and reporting of results are

often inadequate in proposals submitted for funding under the Fish and Wildlife Program

and we offer the following suggestions for routine, effectiveness, and research

monitoring.

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 is an anadromous fish. For

such projects monitoring can in part be addressed at the level of the subbasin plan and

with separate larger-scale monitoring projects. Monitoring of ecological conditions and

fish stock status in the 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 effectiveness of the projects in that subbasin. The large-scale

aspects of monitoring may best be addressed by separate 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 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 (see
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

5

discussion below) 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.

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

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

the monitoring is conducted by another project. Reviewers look for an M&E plan or a

project link to a larger M&E program that can help determine whether an action provides

biologically measurable results, ultimately in terms of fish or wildlife numbers. The ISRP

is not recommending major research-level data collection for all projects. Most

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 and

evaluation at the basin, province, or subbasin scale may realize additional savings if

proponents of related projects collectively design and implement their monitoring and

evaluation activities.

Each project should propose the level of monitoring (see discussion below) that is

needed. How can this be decided? For example, what M&E is needed when a faulty

culvert is replaced? How does it compare to M&E needed to evaluate the collective

projects in the Fish and Wildlife Program for recovery of spring chinook runs in the John

Day River Basin? How does it compare to a project that evaluates the survival rates of

adult salmonids caught and released from tangle nets?

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). We also recommend categorizing

monitoring in a hierarchical sequence from monitoring of implementation and

effectiveness of individual projects to large-scale statistical studies and research

experiments. Four hierarchical levels should be considered: 1) implementation

monitoring, 2) trend monitoring (NMFS Tier 1), 3) statistical monitoring (NMFS Tier 2),

and 4) research monitoring (NMFS Tier 3). We add "implementation" monitoring as a

term to describe monitoring of task completion. For example, miles of stream fenced,

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

Implementation monitoring is often given in proposals to the Council’s Fish and Wildlife

Program. Implementation monitoring results must be presented, but sound science

requires that project results also be measured in terms of benefits to fish and wildlife.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

6

• Tier 1 (trend or routine) monitoring: Bisbal (2001) defined trend monitoring, to be

monitoring that “tracks the variability of a particular parameter over a long period

of time, and relies on obtaining data from revisits to a single site”, a low level of

monitoring that falls under the NMFS Tier 1.

• Tier 2 (statistical) monitoring: Monitoring for statistical inference to larger areas

and longer time periods requires both probabilistic selection of study sites and

repeated visits (NMFS Tier 2).

• Tier 3 (research) monitoring: Monitoring, 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

(NMFS Tier 3). 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.

The ISRP does not expect expensive Tier 3 research monitoring for most small individual

projects, although any project could contain research level objectives. Each individual

proposal must include at least Tier 1 trend monitoring or Tier 2 statistical monitoring, and

these levels of monitoring often can be both simple and inexpensive. Tier 1 trend

monitoring may be adequate for projects such as culvert replacement or water addition

(e.g., are fish found upstream of the culvert after replacement? Have fish colonized oncedry creeks after water addition?). Tier 1 trend monitoring need not require data

collection every year or over an entire study site. Project proponents should use their

detailed and local biological knowledge to determine what needs to be measured to

determine if their project is achieving its specific biological objectives (e.g., has a project

intended to lower water temperature in a stream in fact done so, by comparison to similar

but untreated areas, and thus resulted in more use by fish, again by comparison with

similar but untreated areas or by comparison with preproject data). All monitoring

requires careful and clearly justified selection of what is to be measured (the response)

and of how and where measurements are to be made (the experimental or sampling

design). Further, the data gathered should be summarized, analyzed, and reported

regularly to allow interpretation of the effectiveness of project techniques or efforts.

Tier 1 trend monitoring on individual project sites does not establish cause and effect

relationships (i.e., is not research) and does not provide statistical inductive inferences to

larger areas or time periods. 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 monitoring after culvert replacement to

provide observations of whether or not adults pass through it, understanding that it might

take a year or two or a cycle of abundance before surpluses of fish below encourage them
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

7

to move upstream. Selected stream reaches above replaced culverts might be visited on a

rotating basis rather than every year.

Tier 2 statistical monitoring requires the use of probabilistic sampling to provide

inductive inferences to larger areas or time periods. This is the type of monitoring that is

required to evaluate the overall effectiveness of projects in a subbasin, province, and the

Columbia Basin. For example, the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Monitoring

Program (Nicholas 1997a, 1997b, 1999) as implemented in the Oregon coastal coho

streams and proposed in the Oregon section of the Columbia Plateau Province is a Tier 2

statistical monitoring program. The Oregon Plan, successfully implemented for

estimation of coho distribution and abundance, applies a rigorous sampling design to

answer key monitoring questions, provides integration of sampling efforts, and has

greatly improved coordination among state, federal, and tribal governments, along with

local watershed groups. This plan is a good model for Tier 2 statistical monitoring in

subbasins and provinces of the entire Columbia Basin. The model can easily be modified

for Tier 2 statistical monitoring of terrestrial projects. Individual proposals can support

larger Tier 2 statistical monitoring projects such as the Oregon Plan by using the same

field methods and selection of study sites that contribute information to Tier 2 statistical

monitoring. Most larger projects should implement sampling designs that allow Tier 2

statistical monitoring or contribute data to statistical monitoring. Two projects for the

Columbia Plateau Province, Salmonid Population and Habitat Monitoring in the Oregon

Portion of the Columbia Plateau (25088) and Regional Stream Conditions and Stressor

Evaluation (25010), propose to implement a coordinated approach to fish population and

habitat monitoring using the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Monitoring

Program. These two projects provide an example of coordinated Tier 2 statistical

monitoring

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 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. The appropriate use of these index

sites to draw broader conclusions at the province, subbasin and watershed scale should be

conducted through Tier 2 statistical monitoring using probabilistic selection of survey

sites. The proponents of such projects should plan their monitoring programs to allow for

valid inductive inferences to the target areas. To maintain consistency, sites sampled and

methods used in the past should overlap sites and methods for new Tier 2 statistical

monitoring for a few years.

Tier 3 research monitoring for “establishment of mechanistic links” and “to detect

changes caused by external influences” is usually conducted as part of an experimental

program to rigorously determine the effects of management actions. Tier 3 research

monitoring is not needed by many individual FWP projects, although experiments and
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

8

research monitoring can certainly be proposed and funded. However, project sponsors

should include references to past or current research or Tier 3 monitoring that supports

their projects. Extensive active management activities often need at least some Tier 3

monitoring. 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 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.

In addition to “implementation monitoring”, proposals should (1) identify an appropriate

level of monitoring: Tier 1 trend, Tier 2 statistical, or Tier 3 research monitoring, (2)

describe the specific sampling design or designs (e.g., what is to be measured where and

when), (3) justify the sample designs (i.e., explain why the particular things to be

measured are good measures of project success or failure and why particular sample sites,

sample locations, and sample numbers have been chosen), and (4) describe the protocols

and the statistical methods that will be used to gather and to analyze their monitoring data

(collected from the field and the lab, as needed, to interpret results).

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.

References.

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.

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

Plan: Oregon coastal salmon restoration initiative. State of Oregon, Salem, Oregon.

(http://www.oregon-plan.org/)
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

9

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. (http://www.oregon-plan.org/)

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

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

Oregon. (http://www.oregon-plan.org/)

Preliminary Recommendation and Comments on Each Proposal

Multiple Province and Grouped Proposals

NORTHWEST HABITAT INSTITUTE MAPPING PROPOSALS

1. Project ID: 27003

Characterize and Assess Wildlife-Habitat Types and Structural Conditions for Subbasins

within the Blue Mountain Province

Subbasin: Blue Mountain

Sponsor: Northwest Habitat Institute

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

Province will provide critical baseline data for planning and monitoring efforts that is

consistent with the NWPPC 's Subbasin Planning process.

FY02 Request: $201,175

3 YR Estimate: $312,145

2. Project ID: 28003

Characterize and Assess Wildlife-Habitat Types and Structural Conditions for Subbasins

within the Mountain Snake Province

Subbasin: Mountain Snake Province

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

Province will provide critical baseline data for planning and monitoring efforts that is

called for in the 2 subbasin summaries and is consistent with the NWPPC 's Subbasin

Planning process.

FY02 Request: $375,935

3 YR Estimate: $1,118,197

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is not needed for these two proposals. Fundable in part. The ISRP has

reviewed versions of these proposals in each province. The proposals argue for the utility

of consistent wildlife maps produced at a finer level of resolution than currently

available, but the benefits of this mapping should first be demonstrated in one subbasin or

province before funding in multiple areas. The ISRP recommends that only Objective 1

of one proposal in one subbasin or province be funded as a test of the maps’ utility.

The proposals make a convincing case for the value of presenting complex habitat

information in map form. The proponents have previously demonstrated the ability to
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

10

produce high-quality maps at the Columbia Basin level. The proposed mapping would

develop Landsat maps of wildlife-habitat types throughout the Columbia River Basin. If

successful, these maps would 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. However, the success of finer resolution maps would be determined

by the availability of data at this scale. It is unlikely that regional data are of sufficient

quality to support Objective 2.

Objective 2 should not be funded. The “wildlife and ecological evaluation” would be an

assessment based only on habitat-type maps and on previous correlations of the habitat

types shown in these maps with presence of species of wildlife. However, habitat maps

contain errors and habitat types are necessarily arbitrary and cannot fully capture habitat

for individual species. Thus, the evaluation adds no additional information to what is

provided by the habitat maps, and it would undoubtedly be in error on many counts in

predicting wildlife. It would not provide a very useful assessment of “wildlife species or

habitats that are limiting” within a subbasin; in fact, it is not clear exactly what is meant

by species or habitats being limiting. Objective 2 would have managers diagnose errors in

the predictions that would be generated by the evaluation. Critiquing the predictions

would be a useful exercise for the proponents but is not likely to be useful to the

managers, who might be better informed by gathering primary information on species

distributions and ecosystem function.

The maps would be made available in digital format to wildlife managers for the

development of “coarse filter” conservation strategies. The utility of the maps to wildlife

resource selection studies or as a layer in a GIS is unclear. For example, if the location

(latitude-longitude) of a radio-tagged animal is provided, can the user easily build a table

of associated habitat types based on the digital map?

Proposal 27003 falls below the quality of previous proposals. It is poorly written,

combining poor grammar, spelling and punctuation with a confused structure and

unexplained technical terms. Methods are presented in the background section.

Objectives are different in sections 4 and 5. The “relations to other projects” section

refers almost exclusively to other NHI mapping projects rather than establishing how the

mapping would relate to and complement other projects. Also, absent from the proposals

is a clarification of their relationship to work funded under the NWPPC’s Ecosystem

Diagnosis and Treatment project. The proponents have, however, adequately addressed

the ISRP’s previous comments on validation and field-testing from those reviews.

A key issue for these mapping proposals remains support from the managers, CBFWA,

and the scientific community as a whole. Subbasin summaries indicate a need for

mapping products and in particular, a need for mapping wildlife-habitats, but the

summaries in themselves do not directly call for specific maps. The proposals did not

contain letters of support from managers in the respective subbasins. Finally, publications

describing the methodology for wildlife and ecological evaluation of the habitat maps
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

11

should be submitted to peer review in the wildlife scientific journals such as the Journal

of Wildlife Management.

The ISRP suggests that validation and field-testing be made compatible with one of the

national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of the National Resources

Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve the region well. See the

Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and the ISRP reviews in the Columbia Plateau.

Project ID: 27006

Establishing Baseline Key Ecological Functions of Fish and Wildlife for Subbasin

Planning

Sponsor: Northwest Habitat Institute in collaboration with the Washington Department

of Fish and Wildlife

Subbasin: Blue Mountain Province - Systemwide

Short Description: This project will develop key ecological function information and

species range maps for 133 resident fish and 474 wildlife species that occur within the

Columbia River Basin.

FY02 Request: $153,500

3 YR Estimate: $303,000

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Do not fund. A response is not warranted. This project proposes to evaluate key

ecological functions of species and species assemblages in ecosystems and suggests that

functional richness and functional redundancy can be assessed from the information base

they have gathered or will compile. Knowledge of species functions in ecosystems and

of redundancy versus uniqueness of species to ecosystem dynamics is important and has

obvious implications for management. However, the current proposal is unlikely to

provide information of a quality that could reasonably be used for management.

This proposal purports to establish key ecological functions for fish and wildlife to use as

a baseline in subbasin planning. It proposes to expand the work on KEFs presented by the

PI and another author in Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington and in

the earlier stages of this project. It proposes to improve on GAP analysis by more

consistent mapping. Good background is given on the development of KEFs and their

application in the estimation of various functional patterns, but the proposal is vague

about which ongoing work it would enhance. It cites the locations of information

supporting the project but does not summarize that information. It does not specify

relationship to projects other than to its predecessor BPA project; surely the project

proponents could establish the utility of the KEF work they propose in terms of its

usefulness to other researchers? The project history would be another place that the

utility of results to managers and researchers could be demonstrated. The potential utility

of the approach would be further strengthened if the proponents submitted the work for

publication in the peer-reviewed literature. Objectives are well specified but it does not

seem reasonable to infer ecological function that generalizes across different contexts on

the basis of species lists.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

12

The information to be used to assess ecological function is very general (e.g., an animal

might be described as an herbivore that carries vertebrate diseases and that physically

affects soil structure) and does not consider strength or even presence of a functional role

for a species in a particular area. These “key ecological functions” might provide a useful

thumbnail sketch of basic ecological traits of a species, but species effects in ecosystems

have often been shown to be very context-specific. The project will not use or gather any

primary data on ecological function. Given the many ecological studies that show

different functional roles for the same species in different communities or under different

environmental conditions, this approach seems inherently flawed. Further, the data

(species distributions) needed for such a project are not available for many species in

many areas. Both lack of data and poor data quality are likely to be major problems for

early steps of the analysis. The alternate source of distributional information – projecting

presence of animals from habitat data – introduces circularity into the process and must

add significant error to the resulting distribution maps and species lists.

Bull Trout and Related Resident Fish Proposals

A collection of proposals was submitted for this review that address bull trout. Three

clearly focus on general life-history studies in different parts of the basin. Two focus

primarily on population dynamics of bull trout. One addresses brook trout control to help

prevent them from interbreeding with bull trout. Another addresses development of a

monitoring program for native species in the Salmon River basin, and one in the Salmon

Basin proposes to model invasion by exotics.

The ISRP is recommending the two population dynamics proposals be combined to one

and direct the focus to assessing potential for using mark-recapture methods (modified by

Pradel) to assess bull trout population dynamics. These concepts may provide some

relatively simple methods of assessment compared to those presently available.

One life-history proposal was rejected because it did not present a credible study design.

Other life-history studies were asked to provide a response to ISRP comments and

questions. There is a large amount of information regarding bull trout life history in the

basin. Because it is not clear that significant benefit accrues to the species from more

such studies, they should not be encouraged. Instead, potential project submitters should

be encouraged to study existing data and observations as a basis for imaginative

hypotheses and tests regarding factors controlling reproductive success of the species

across its range.

Important questions must be addressed by sponsors of projects to model exotic invasions

and to control their numbers by introducing other exotics before these projects can be

assessed. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game proposal includes study of life history

and other elements in its title, but later states its goal to be development of a monitoring

program. The ISRP is asking for a response and further development of existing data to

show the need they are describing.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

13

Project ID: 199405402

Characterize the Migratory Patterns, Population Structure, Food Habits, and Abundance

of Bull Trout from Subbasins in the Blue Mountain Province.

Sponsor: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Subbasin: Blue Mountain Province

Short Description: To aid in conservation efforts for bull trout, describe their

piscivorous nature, assess their population and age structure, explore methods to monitor

their abundance, describe their migratory patterns, and monitor the status of populations.

FY02 Request: $670,804

3 YR Estimate: $1,946,270

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is required. This is a multi-faceted investigation on bull trout life history and

population structure in the Grand Ronde subbasin. The proposal is well prepared with

respect to background and research approach in most respects but has deficiencies

regarding the budget, past results, and some methods. One of the objectives seems more

appropriate for a separate project. It is of relatively large scale and expensive (about $2.5

million over 5 years). The proposal should be carefully reworked. The project has been

funded for 7 years. The proposal refers to previous results but presents little about them.

Some results were presented in the ISRP briefing.

The budget should be reduced and is in dire need of re-thinking and reorganization. It is

excessive for what the investigators propose to accomplish. The outline of objectives and

tasks in the budget seems to follow more than one organizational system, makes little

sense, and does not always match with the proposal text. In section 5, for example, the

numbering system repeats itself. And what are items one to four? Are these for other

basins, and if so why are they in this proposal? Are they included in the budget total?

Budget Task 1.4 refers to seven loci in analyses, but the methods refer to 10 loci.

Publication/communication costs (over $95K, adding the amounts shown for this in

several places) constitute over 1/3 of the budget and have not been justified. Section 8

refers to underwater video but this is not mentioned in the proposal. Section 8 includes

$2,600 for phone service and utilities; should Indirect costs not cover this? Section 8 also

duplicates the categories Personnel, Fringe, Supplies, Travel, and Indirect. Should this

be? For the first fringe item, the amount ($119, 863) is 60% of the personnel line above

it. Reviewers question whether that fringe benefits rate is justified. They further question

whether even the 41.4% fringe benefits rate shown for the second personnel item is

justified. Are these rates standard for ODFW? This does not appear to be the case in other

proposals. There is a very significant increase in the budget; if this proposal is collating

other activities, where were they funded before? Also needing justification is the budget

component for work in the Deschutes basin (section 5, Objective 1; $60K?).

The project lacks a genuine habitat component, which is crucial for understanding bull

trout abundance and distribution, and for restoration and monitoring. Objective 5 is

worthwhile but does not directly relate to Objectives 1-4, does not include habitat or

juvenile surveys, and is unclear about how the information will be used in a monitoring

program. Objective 5 should be submitted as a new proposal with greater detail on how

the surveys will be conducted, a component that includes habitat conditions and habitat
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

14

change, a juvenile component, and a clear plan for the use of the information in

monitoring. A clearly defined monitoring plan for bull trout in the Blue Mountain

Province is necessary to provide context and justification for the EMAP-based surveys.

Objective 5 is especially tenuous given the problems associated with assessing bull trout

abundance from redd counts.

It is not clear how the investigators will identify bull trout in the hand (or observed) as

fluvial or resident.

If a component of projects 27017 and 28014 is implemented, this project should be

coordinated with it.

Bull Trout Population Assessment and Life History Proposals from

USGS

1. Project ID: 27017

Bull trout population assessment and life history characteristics in association with

habitat quality and land use: template for recovery planning.

Sponsor: Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, USGS

Subbasin: Imnaha

FY02 Request: $469,792

3 YR Estimate: $1,009,568

and

2. Project ID: 28014

Bull trout population assessment and life history characteristics in association with

habitat quality and land use: template for recovery planning.

Subbasin: Salmon

FY02 Request: $469,792

3 YR Estimate: $1,009,568

Short Description: Assess bull trout population density, abundance and life history

characteristics for core areas of the Imnaha [and Salmon] Subbasins and evaluate

relationships to habitat quality and land use based on field evaluations and

mark/recapture techniques.

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. Similar proposals were submitted by the sponsors for bull trout in

Rapid River/Boulder Creek, Idaho, and in the Imnaha River, Oregon. One reason for the

duplicate submission was to examine geographic differences. The ISRP concluded that

these proposals would not provide a sound basis for understanding variability across the

species’ range. A suitable proposal for that part of the study should include a sample of

populations that is representative of the species across its range. The ISRP also is

concerned that a paired stream approach with limited replication has generally not been

fruitful for populations of stream dwelling salmonids because of the abundance of

confounding environmental factors. Reviewers felt the proposed study would provide

some more basic bull trout data, but stops short of assessing critical limiting factors. Ten
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

15

years ago gathering of basic data on bull trout was appropriate, but now it is time to test

some elegant hypotheses and begin implementing recovery.

The ISRP recommends that the study site be limited to either Rapid River/Boulder Creek,

or the Imnaha River, and that a single proposal be developed as a pilot study to evaluate

the proposed application of Pradel’s ideas, and the PIT tag applications and detection

methods to fluvial bull trout. The new proposal should include a discussion of why the

effectiveness of a new PIT-tag system is necessary if it is already under evaluation

elsewhere. The sponsors need to show full coordination of proposal development with

research presently underway with fish habitat and bull trout at the site of choice.

Clearwater Subbasin

Project ID: 28022

Evaluate Bull Trout Life History in Dworshak Reservoir, N.F. Clearwater River

Drainage, ID

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Evaluate distribution, habitat use, and movement patterns of bull

trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in Dworshak Reservoir

FY02 Request: $208,850

3 YR Estimate: $516,850

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. The objective of this project is to evaluate distribution, habitat use,

feeding, and movement of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in Dworshak Reservoir and

tributary streams, as well as measure possible entrainment at Dworshak Dam. It would

consolidate various bull trout activities and funding sources into a single project. The

project is generally well planned and comprehensive. The data from it, with some

additions, should provide a basis for managing the system to benefit bull trout. In

addition to the tasks listed in the proposal, the project should sex the adult fish, estimate

fecundity of adult females (literature values for number of eggs per female of given size

applied to the sizes of females in the population or sub-populations), and estimate total

egg deposition from fecundity data, size structure of the female population, and redd

counts. Total mature female population and, based on sex ratio, total adult population

might then be estimated. These additions could be fitted into Tasks 1.1 and 3.4 at little or

no added cost, and, particularly if done for enough years, should yield helpful basic

information. Importantly, an objective should be added to assess factors that limit the bull

trout population; this would make it more likely that critically needed management could

be undertaken soon.

The reviewers recommend that the proposal include greater consideration of recent bull

trout studies done or underway elsewhere, in particular those at the U.S. Forest Service’s

Boise Research Station.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

16

Project ID: 28023

Evaluate and Control Brook Trout Populations – Addressing Competition and

Hybridization Threats in the Clearwater River Drainage, Idaho.

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Biological and physical methods will be utilized to suppress or

eliminate brook trout populations in area where risk of competition and hybridization

with bull trout is high.

FY02 Request: $183,800

3 YR Estimate: $547,600

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. The idea behind this project seems a good one. The project appears

reasonably well thought out and has an experimental / adaptive management element.

However, the applicant should carry out objectives 2, 3, and 4 (analyzing the extent of the

problem) first, i.e., in the first year or several years, and only then decide whether to

undertake the presently stated objective 1 (the proposed remedy) in a future year. This

would be the logical order in management. Not stated in the proposal is how long the

tiger muskie populations are anticipated to remain in the lakes. Applicant should discuss

this and two potential problems: (1) accidental establishment of permanent muskie

populations in the lakes in the event that not all tiger muskies stocked are truly sterile

(reference and discuss literature on amount of non-sterility); (2) the effects of tiger

muskies on bull trout in the lakes and their outlets. The revised proposal should

incorporate summer 2001 results from the larger lake mentioned in oral presentation.

Salmon River Subbasin

Project ID: 28002

Fluvial Bull Trout Migration and Life History Investigations in the upper Salmon River

Subbasin

Sponsor: Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Identify the distribution and status of fluvial bull trout populations.

Identify seasonal habitat use and migration patterns of fluvial bull trout. Determine bull

trout presence/absence, densities, population status, and spawning times.

FY02 Request: $163,440

3 YR Estimate: $451,440

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Do not fund. A response is not needed because of significant deficiencies in the

proposal. The proposal is to “fill all data gaps” concerning bull trout distribution,

abundance, and migration patterns for fluvial bull trout in the upper Salmon River basin.

It endeavors to justify this new effort based solely on a perceived lack of knowledge, a

premise that was not convincing to reviewers who would have been more receptive to

investigation of specific significant hypotheses. The work did not appear linked to the

extensive work conducted by Thurow, Rieman and Dunham in the state. In addition to a

radio-tracking component, the sponsor intends to describe distributions and abundances

across the sub-basin. No argument in presented to justify what seems to be an
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

17

insufficient sample size for the objectives of the radio-telemetry tracking portion of the

study. A systematic procedure was not presented for estimating abundance or

distribution. It is known, as stated, that bull trout spawn from mid-August to mid-late

September. The proposal includes action to further define spawning time, but no reason

was provided for the need.

The literature on bull trout life history contains significant information on adult capture,

radio tag mortalities, day vs. night snorkeling, and other study methodologies that could

streamline, fine tune, and focus the proposed study. Lack of discussion and reference to

this extensive literature and its implications was viewed as a serious deficit for this

proposal.

Project ID: 28030

Salmon River Native Resident Fish Assessment

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Investigate population status and trends, life histories, habitat needs,

limiting factors, and threats to persistence of all resident native fishes in the Salmon

River Subbasin. Emphasis of work will be on salmonid fishes.

FY02 Request: $250,000

3 YR Estimate: $650,000

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. This is a new proposal by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game

to establish a position, develop a database structure, and conduct distribution and relative

abundance estimates of bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, redband trout, and non-game

species in the Salmon River basin. The first objective is to review existing data to

identify “data gaps.” Subsequently, a detailed work plan would be developed to conduct

surveys in FY02-FY06 to fill the data gaps. The long-term goal is to initiate a monitoring

program to track the condition of these species.

Reviewers acknowledge that there is a clear and long-recognized need for basic

population information on resident native salmonid species, including bull trout,

westslope cutthroat trout, and redband trout, and any data gathering should include nonnative salmonids in some fashion. However, the panel is equally aware that the

proposal's justification ("little current information exists on native resident fishes") is not

compatible with the subbasin summary's discussion of more than 100 assessments

completed to date. It is clear that better, not simply more, data are needed.

Because the proposal does not present a work plan, it is difficult for reviewers to be

supportive of the proposal at this time. Once the detailed work plan is developed, a

proposal could be developed around it and submitted for review at a future date.

The ISRP recommends that the proponents of the project work with the Oregon,

Washington, and Montana Provinces to develop monitoring and evaluation procedures

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

Basin. The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Monitoring Program (Nicholas
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

18

1997a, 1997b, 1999) as implemented in the Oregon coastal coho streams and the

Columbia Plateau Province is a Tier 2 level monitoring and evaluation program that can

serve as a good model. Also, see the section on monitoring in the introduction to this

report.

In particular, this proposal should show evidence of close cooperation with related

proposals such as #28051 and #199107300 to ensure that plans for site selection and

method for data collection are compatible. Data should be made available via

STREAMNET.

Project ID: 28007

Causes and effects of nonnative trout invasions in the Salmon and Clearwater River

subbasins

Sponsor: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Provide a better understanding of nonnative trout invasions and their

effects on native salmonids. Deliver models and information for evaluating management

alternatives. RPA 152 will be most significantly enhanced by this work.

FY02 Request: $64,900

3 YR Estimate: $676,900

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. This is a proposal to develop a series of models to examine causes

of non-native 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 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. To justify FWP funding the response should make stronger ties between

possible results and management options. Work proposed as objective 1, to describe

broad-scale patterns of native and nonnative salmonid status and distribution, would

produce some "preliminary predictive models" but the proposal contained no further

detail and did not put that effort in the context of currently available models. Please

clarify.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

19

Assessment of spring/summer chinook habitat in the Grande Ronde and

Salmon subbasins

1. Project ID: 27007

Assessment of spring/summer chinook salmon habitat within the Grande Ronde

Subbasin.

Sponsor: USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Geological

Survey, Utah State University

FY02 Request: $205,000

3 YR Estimate: $235,000

and

2. Project ID: 28005

Assessment of spring/summer chinook salmon habitat within the Salmon River Subbasin.

FY02 Request: $395,000

3 YR Estimate: $440,000

Short Description: Evaluate and compare attributes of streams utilized and not utilized

by chinook salmon within the subbasin. Evaluated habitat characteristics would describe

low gradient stream segments, which foster chinook salmon production.

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. The main project goal would be to link an extensive habitat

database to present population status information for chinook populations. These two

companion project proposals are ambitious and attempt to look at habitat attributes and

salmonid distributions at finer scales than are typically investigated. This will be a very

intensive examination of potentially important habitat elements; all presently known

stream-salmonid habitat variables (and some other variables, such as macroinvertebrates

and periphyton) seem to be included in the study. Measurements will extend back into

the riparian zone.

As these two proposals are extremely similar, sharing staff, methods, and so on, we

recommend that the study site be limited to either the Grande Ronde, or the Salmon River

subbasin, and that a single proposal be developed as a pilot study to evaluate existing

data, data collection methods, and the proposed habitat model. The sponsors need to

show full coordination of proposal development with research presently underway with

fish habitat and spring/summer chinook salmon at the study site of choice.

Although the proposals are clearly written and their authors are recognized leaders in

habitat research, reviewers felt that a large volume of data, similar to what is sought here,

presently exists in agency and researcher files. The subbasin summaries note numerous

aquatic assessments already completed. If the proposal described how it would fill a

significant void left by previous assessments, it would be more compelling.

Additionally, reviewers believe the reasons for differences in chinook smolt production
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

20

among subwatersheds are currently more clearly understood than the proposal would

suggest.

The proposals are heavy on habitat sampling methodology but provide insufficient

explanation of what biological data for salmonids will be obtained (is the data even

available for Task A?) and how relationships between the biological data and habitat

variables will be analyzed. Out-of basin factors could have a significant influence on

salmon presence and abundance, yet these are not accounted for. Tasks A and B are

unclear and require much further elaboration.

Stream temperature is listed in Table 1 as a variable to be measured in the field, but the

methods are not shown. The temperature regime will have to be analyzed for each site,

and the methods for measurement and analysis should be explained. Except for the latter

shortcoming, the project is exemplary, and much information of kinds sorely needed in

chinook habitat management should result.

ISRP Comments on the Four-Step Safety-Net Process and Associated

Proposals (projects 28012, 28015, 28055, 28056, and 28057).

Do not fund projects 28012, 28015, 28055, 28056, and 28057; an integrated response is

needed from the various proposers with participation by NMFS that addresses the ISRP

concerns and demonstrates that the Four-Step Safety-Net Process is well coordinated,

scientifically sound, and consistent across the basin.

Data available for extinction risk assessments are going to provide no more than crude

estimates of risk. Caution is needed with statements and models that include carrying

capacity, since it is itself a dynamic value. Confidence in risk estimates will be very low

and a source of disagreement. The process must be developed via methods that will

ensure buy-in by all agencies. There must be agreement as to what confidence levels are

acceptable before an action is taken. Standards need to be defined for the type and

quality of data minimally required for such assessments, including population and subpopulation structure. Proposing to obtain only review and comment by the associated

agencies cannot be expected to produce support for the process.

The process is meant for critically depressed populations. Some populations seem to

have been identified for consideration before any process was specified to identify

“critically depressed stocks.” The process, if initiated, should be designed to include a

systematic process for identifying these stocks across the basin.

The process assumes that artificial propagation can provide a safety net for critically

depressed stocks when identified. What database is available from the Snake River to

provide that confidence? Recent reports including project 199102800 in the Mountain

Snake Province, conclude that survival of migrants to Lower Granite Dam declines with

increasing abundance. These results may implicate artificially high densities caused by

release of hatchery fish as an additional cause for decline of wild fish.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

21

There seems to be misunderstanding of the intent of the process. Use of donor stocks

was identified in one proposal as a possible need. How can a donor stock be considered

for use under a program designed to preclude extinction of a local population? Another

proposal indicated that the process was going to help increase abundance in the target

population, and it was described as any other project trying to cause increase in

population size with hatchery fish.

Fish populations in the Middle Fork Salmon River have declined as a result of problems

in the migration route or ocean. These problems should be solved rather than acting (use

of hatchery fish) to further jeopardize fish populations in the Middle Fork. If, at some

time in the future it can be demonstrated that these populations are in imminent danger of

extinction, and at the same time it can be shown there will be immediate action to fix

conditions in the migration route or ocean, it may make some sense to cryopreserve

gametes or use short-term propagation as “last ditch” efforts to save some of the genetic

material, but a sound technical basis for the required assessment does not exist.

The last step in the process is development of a HGMP for each propagation program.

The ISRP’s opinion is that the template for preparation of these documents provides little

confidence that the strict requirements needed for artificial propagation of endangered

species will result. The template calls for detailed information concerning how a

hatchery presently operates and some inquiries as to how the potential impact of the

program will be reduced. If the 4-step process is to proceed, detailed guidelines for

operation of these facilities must be developed.

In summary, the ISRP concludes that the 4-step process is not ready to go forward, and

may even be a flawed strategy. Its technical credibility depends on objective selection of

populations for safety net consideration, on the availability of information to permit

development of strategies that will do more good than harm, and on standards for

management of artificial production. In addition, the process does not seem to be

coordinated with the subbasin planning effort. None of these elements are in place.

SALMON SUBBASIN

1. Project ID: 28057

Four-Step Safety-Net Plan for Lower Salmon River A-Run Steelhead

Sponsor: Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: This project is identified under hatchery RPA 175. The goal of this

project is to determine whether intervention is necessary to prevent the decline or

immediate extirpation of Lower Salmon River A-run steelhead, and to identify

management alternatives.

FY02 Request: $73,422

3 YR Estimate: $89,220

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

See general comment on Four-Step Safety-Net Plan proposals.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

22

2. Project ID: 28056

Four-Step Safety-Net Plan for South Fork Salmon River B-Run Steelhead

Sponsor: Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: This project is identified under hatchery RPA 175. The project goal

is to determine whether intervention is necessary to prevent the decline or immediate

extirpation of South Fork Salmon River B-run steelhead, and to identify management

alternatives.

FY02 Request: $73,422

3 YR Estimate: $89,220

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

See general comment on Four-Step Safety-Net Plan proposals.

3. Project ID: 28012

Four-Step Planning to Identify Safety-Net Projects for Idaho Steelhead

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: This proposal addresses RPA 175. Planning process identified by

NMFS to prioritize populations and determine strategies to alleviate near-term extinction

risk.

FY02 Request: $206,200

3 YR Estimate: $656,200

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

See general comment on Four-Step Safety-Net Plan proposals.

4. Project ID: 28015

Benefit/Risk Analysis to Promote Long-Term Persistence of Chinook Salmon in the

Middle Fork Salmon River

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Assess relative benefits and risks associated with current population

status, genetics and potential for management actions

and implement appropriate action to ensure long-term persistence of chinook salmon in

the Middle Fork Salmon River subbasin.

FY02 Request: $156,726

3 YR Estimate: $181,726

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

See general comment on Four-Step Safety-Net Plan proposals.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

23

CLEARWATER SUBBASIN

5. Project ID: 28055

Four-Step Safety-Net Plan for Upper Lochsa River B-Run Steelhead

Sponsor: Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: This project is identified under hatchery RPA 175. The goal of this

project is to determine whether intervention is necessary to prevent the decline or

immediate extirpation of upper Lochsa River B-run steelhead, and to identify

management alternatives.

FY02 Request: $73,422

3 YR Estimate: $89,220

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

See general comment on Four-Step Safety-Net Plan proposals.

Project ID: 28026

Develop HGMP’s for LSRCP Programs to address artificial production reforms identified

in the FCRPS Biological Opinion and other regional processes.

Sponsor: US Fish and Wildlife Service, Lower Snake River Compensation Plan

Subbasin: Blue Mountain and Mountain Snake Provinces

Short Description: Assess LSRCP Programs to identify needed artificial production

reform measures, coordinate proposed reforms among co-managers, select and define

potential reforms, and develop funding implementation.

FY02 Request: $856,292

3 YR Estimate: $1,755,399

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

No response needed. A scientific review is not applicable. This does not lend itself to

technical review, but from a scientific point of view the ISRP is not convinced that

HGMP’s will actually provide guidance on protecting ESA listed stocks. See general

comments on 4-step process.

Project ID: 199703800

Preserve Salmonid Gametes and Establish a Regional Salmonid Germplasm Repository

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management

Subbasin: Blue Mountain and Mountain Snake Provinces

Short Description: Preserve Salmonid Gametes through cryogenic techniques to

maintain genetic diversity in populations with low levels of abundance and at high risk of

extirpation. Establish a Regional Salmonid Germplasm Repository for populations listed

under the ESA.

FY02 Request: $1,279,000

3 YR Estimate: $4,383,000

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response is needed. To date, the project has cryopreserved male gametes from over

2,700 chinook salmon and steelhead. The proposal would continue and expand that

program roughly four-fold after construction of a new building, evaluating additional
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

24

basins for gamete collections from salmonids (resident and anadromous), other fishes

such as lamprey and burbot, and amphibians.

Sponsors need to provide a convincing argument that use of cryopreservation as a tool of

conservation for Columbia River salmonids continues to be logical, in part, by

responding to the following statements.

Generally, measures such as cryopreservation are taken in an attempt to protect a species

for a very short time while emergency actions are taken to restore lost habitat. A concern

is that the gametes retained do not represent the population, and their contribution to a

breeding program may not be random. Sampling from the population is only from males.

The population is already in a potential genetic bottleneck before the original samples are

taken and repeated sampling only exacerbates that problem. Because trials generally

show relatively low viability of cryopreserved sperm, is a random sample of the genetic

material passed to subsequent generations?

The ISRP also had specific questions concerning the following:

Why do the sponsors feel that it is “... logical that BPA fund this proposal because of its

past investment in the ongoing Snake River Salmonid Gamete Preservation Project”?

Shouldn’t a Regional Center be a collaborative effort? Why is a new (vs renovated)

building needed? Why build on the opposite side of Moscow (the Alturas location) from

the university? Why isn’t it better to place this in very close proximity to either UI or

WSU to maximize interaction and (presumably) minimize cost?

Reviewers questioned why gametes would be collected from cutthroat trout for the

repository when their population status has been judged healthy enough to preclude ESA

listing.

Please clarify the relationship of the proposed regional repository in this proposal and

that proposed for Hagerman.

Idaho Supplementation Studies

A response is needed for the set of Idaho Supplementation Study Projects.

Background

Supplementation of natural stocks is not a mandated mitigation objective, but has become

an important part of the hatchery programs. Idaho has outplanted (i.e. off-site releases)

over 5.5 million chinook fry, approximately 8 million smolts, and 8,000 adults into the

Salmon River drainage since 1977 (IDFG et. al. 1990). During the same period, over 17

million fry, 3 million smolts, and 2,000 adults were outplanted into the Clearwater River

drainage (Nez Perce Tribe et. al. 1990). In spite of widespread outplanting activities

there has been little scientific evaluation of supplementation on rebuilding or influencing

natural salmon populations both in Idaho and basin wide. Furthermore, despite these

hatchery mitigation efforts, anadromous fish stocks in Idaho continued to decline.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

25

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) spearheaded development of the Idaho

Supplementation Studies (ISS) to address questions identified in the Supplementation

Technical Work Group (STWG) Five Year Workplan (STWG 1988), as well as help

define the potential role of supplementation in managing Idaho's anadromous fisheries

and as a recovery tool for the basin. The goal of the Idaho Supplementation Studies is to

evaluate various supplementation strategies for maintaining and rebuilding

spring/summer chinook salmon populations in Idaho and to develop recommendations for

using supplementation to rebuild naturally spawning populations.

Projects directly involved in the ISS are:

1. Project ID: 198909800. Idaho Supplementation Studies. Sponsor: Idaho

Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation.

Subbasin: Salmon.

2. Project ID: 198909801. Evaluate Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers

(ISS). Sponsor: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Idaho Fishery Resource Office.

Subbasin: Clearwater.

3. Project ID: 198909802. Evaluate Salmon Supplementation Studies in Idaho

Rivers- Nez Perce Tribe. Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe. Subbasin: Salmon.

4. Project ID: 198909803. Salmon Supplementation Studies in Idaho- ShoshoneBannock Tribes. Sponsor: Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Subbasin: Salmon

5. Project ID: 199005500. Steelhead Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers.

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species

Conservation. Subbasin: Clearwater

6. Project ID: 199604300. Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement

Project. Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe. Subbasin: Salmon.

ISS also coordinates field activities and data collection efforts with the Idaho Habitat/

Natural Production Monitoring project (199107300). ISS also coordinates with and

transfers data to projects in the Salmon River subbasin including the Monitoring Smolt

Migration of Wild Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon (199102800), Salmon

River Habitat Enhancement (9405000), and Salmon River Production Program

(199705700). ISS also works closely with the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan

(LSRCP) to coordinate on hatchery supplementation treatments and evaluations.

Presently, there are eleven state and federal anadromous hatcheries operating in Idaho:

Clearwater, Oxbow, Rapid River, McCall, Sawtooth, Pahsimeroi, Dworshak, Kooskia,

Hagerman National, Niagara Springs, and Magic Valley. There are also three satellite

rearing ponds: Powell, Red River, and Crooked River operated in conjunction with the
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

26

Clearwater Hatchery. These hatcheries have the combined capacity to produce 8.5

million spring chinook smolts, 2 million summer chinook smolts, 6.7 million A-run

steelhead O. mykiss smolts, and 4 million B-run steelhead smolts annually.

ISS Study Design

The ISS study design called for a minimum of 15 years (three generations) of research

(Bowles and Leitzinger 1991). Sampling was initiated in 1991, and implementation

began in 1992. Supplementation effects are monitored and evaluated by comparing

juvenile production and survival, fecundity, age structure, and genetic structure and

variability in treatment and control streams of similar ecological parameters.

Due to the large geographic scope of this study, study streams were partitioned among

four resource management entities for implementation. These include Idaho Department

of Fish and Game, Nez Perce Tribe, Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, and the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service-Idaho Fishery Resource Office. Allocations were based on interest,

integration with ongoing programs, cost efficiency, logistics and, to a lesser extent,

relative equity. Approximately one-half of the study will be implemented by Idaho

Department of Fish and Game through the ISS contract with BPA. The Nez Perce Tribe

and Shoshone-Bannock Tribe have similar commitments to ISS, each comprising

approximately 20% of the study. Both of these components rely heavily on integration of

existing or proposed tribal programs. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Idaho Fishery

Resource Office implements about ten percent of the project. The Idaho Department of

Fish and Game is the lead agency regarding project development, coordination, and

implementation.

The ISS Experimental Design was completed and published in 1991. Baseline data

collection and development of supplementation brood stocks (Phase I) began in 1991.

Over a period of about five years, supplementation brood stocks were developed for

seven hatchery trap/release locations as identified in the experimental design:

Artificial Production Facilities

1. Sawtooth Fish Hatchery – Upper Salmon River

2. Pahsimeroi Fish Hatchery – Pahsimeroi River

3. McCall Fish Hatchery – South Fork Salmon River

Clearwater Fish Hatchery Satellites

4. Crooked River

5. Red River

6. Powell (Colt-killed Creek)

7. Clear Creek – Kooskia National Fish Hatchery

As adult fish began to return from the Phase I supplementation brood stock juvenile

releases, the project progressed into Phase II. Phase II utilizes the returning adults to

supplement natural origin recruits in treatment streams and maintains supplementation

brood stocks for juvenile production and release. Juvenile fish releases through brood
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

27

year 1996 include 1,281,755 fish in the Clearwater River basin and 1,954,048 fish in the

Salmon River basin.

This project is now transitioning from Phase II to Phase III, monitoring the effects of

supplementation. In Phase III juvenile releases from supplementation brood stocks are

eventually terminated, returning adults from prior juvenile releases are released to

supplement spawning of natural origin recruits, and monitoring of production and

productivity response variables in control and treatment streams continues. In 2000,

juvenile releases were maintained at levels similar to releases in 1999.

Treatment (e.g. supplementation in general, supplementation with a particular life stage,

supplementation with a particular brood source) effects will be tested directly by

hypotheses. In general, treatments will be applied for one to two generations (5-10 years)

following approximately one generation of pretreatment data. Population responses to

supplementation will be monitored a minimum of one generation (5 years) following

supplementation. It is important that the original study design be maintained.

Reducing sample size (number of treatment streams) can potentially impair the sensitivity

of the design. Reducing to five treatment streams provides only a 60% chance of

detecting a 25% change in production, whereas we would still have over 95% chance of

detecting a 50% change.

Related projects

Several additional projects are related to the ISS. The monitoring and evaluation portion

of the Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement project (199604300) conducts

the juvenile emigration and survival, adult escapement (weir and spawning ground

surveys), and genetic monitoring associated with the ISS project in Johnson Creek. The

Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation project (198335003) collects the

data associated with the ISS project in Lolo Creek, Eldorado Creek, and Newsome

Creeks in the Clearwater River subbasin. The Nez Perce Tribe Monitoring of Listed

Stock Chinook Salmon Escapement project (BPA Number 199703000) operates a video

camera and weir to passively monitor and enumerate adults returning to Lake Creek and

upper Secesh River. This project collects data on adult abundance and migration timing

of chinook salmon.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendations:

As initially planned, the Idaho Supplementation Study (ISS) was probably the best

supplementation study among the Provinces. It should be continued, but the ISRP has a

number of concerns that should be addressed while there is still time. This study

addresses the critical issue of the efficacy of supplementation to restore populations and

many resources have been committed to it. With the experimental design of the Yakima

Hatchery in question (no wild/wild and no hatchery/hatchery controls), retaining the

integrity of this experiment is crucial. It is important that the Idaho Supplementation

Studies be completed following the original approved experimental design.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

28

The most critical ISRP concerns are:

1) the effect of the loss of Johnson Creek (previously a control stream) from the

experimental design, and

2) the effect of straying of hatchery fish into Lake Creek, the Secesh River, and other

designated “controls”.

As currently planned in project #199604300 “Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation

Enhancement Project”, Johnson Creek is neither a treatment nor a control stream in the

ISS because the criteria for stopping supplementation has been changed and does not

appear to match the timetable in the ISS. Supplementation activities in Johnson Creek

should cease immediately for the duration of the ISS study design, allowing Johnson

Creek to continue to be used as a ‘control’ stream, even given the recent limited

supplementation of it. (Note: a portion of the 2001 returning jacks are the first returning

fish from the limited Johnson Creek supplementation effort.)

To do minimal damage to the ISS study design, the ISRP recommends that Johnson

Creek now be considered a control stream (at least by year class!) and that

supplementation be stopped in Johnson Creek in accordance with the original timetable in

the ISS. The number of wild returning adults we observed earlier this month spawning in

Johnson Creek, and the number we are likely to observe next year, argue that

supplementation of Johnson Creek is not needed as an emergency action for a declining

stock at least through the duration of the ISS experiment.

As we understand the situation, the decision to remove Johnson Creek from the study was

beyond the control of some proponents of the ISS project. Nevertheless, we find it

unacceptable that the experimental design for study of such a critical issue as

supplementation would be compromised by a decision to remove a control stream from

the study. The only conclusion we can come to is that the proponents of the decision to

remove Johnson Creek from the supplementation study believe that they already know

the result, i.e., they believe supplementation works. A broad base of the scientific

community is in extreme disagreement with this conclusion, and it is unacceptable that

the best-designed study of supplementation would be compromised.

Other ISRP concerns: The proponents should list the initial control and treatment streams

and the current treatments and controls. How has the overall design changed? What is

the current timetable to stop supplementation in the treatment streams and to evaluate the

effect on natural production? In the control streams, what effect do the straying rates

have on the analysis? What would be the effect of changing Johnson Creek from a

“control” to a “treatment” stream on the statistical power of the study?

The results of this project should help determine whether supplementation is a viable

restoration strategy and as such should inform the RPA four-step safety net process.

There may be a need for ongoing input from an over-site committee with members

outside those participating in the study to monitor the progress. Has this been planned for

or considered?
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

29

Salmon River Subbasin

1. Project ID: 198909800

Idaho Supplementation Studies

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Evaluate various supplementation strategies for maintaining and

rebuilding spring/summer chinook salmon populations in Idaho. Develop

recommendations for using supplementation to rebuild naturally spawning populations.

FY02 Request: $996,726

3 YR Estimate: $2,971,726

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

See ISRP comment on the set of Idaho Supplementation Studies above.

2. Project ID: 198909801

Evaluate Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers (ISS)

Sponsor: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Idaho Fishery Resource Office

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Evaluate various supplementation strategies for maintaining and

rebuilding spring/summer chinook salmon populations in Idaho. Develop

recommendations for the use of supplementation to rebuild naturally spawning

populations.

FY02 Request: $126,320

3 YR Estimate: $406,320

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

See ISRP comments on the set of Idaho Supplementation Studies above.

3. Project ID: 198909802

Evaluate Salmon Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers- Nez Perce Tribe

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Evaluates hatchery supplementation as a recovery - restoration tool

for spring and summer chinook salmon. Quantifies key population status and

performance variables, including early-life history and smolt- to adult survival rates.

FY02 Request: $676,476

3 YR Estimate: $1,998,214

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

See ISRP comment on the set of Idaho Supplementation Studies above.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

30

4. Project ID: 198909803

Salmon Supplementation Studies in Idaho- Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Sponsor: Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Evaluate various supplementation strategies for maintaining and

rebuilding spring/summer chinook populations in Idaho. Develop recommendations for

the use of supplementation to rebuild naturally spawning populations.

FY02 Request: $213,569

3 YR Estimate: $683,658

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

See ISRP comment on the set of Idaho Supplementation Studies above.

5. Project ID: 199005500

Steelhead Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Clearwater

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Evaluate the feasibility of using artificial production to increase

natural steelhead populations and to collect life history, genetic, and abundance data from

wild steelhead populations in Idaho.

FY02 Request: $686,307

3 YR Estimate: $2,009,759

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

See ISRP comment on the set of Idaho Supplementation Studies above. Excellent

proposal. Presentation, which was articulate and clear, could have been superb through

the use of better presentation materials and graphics.

Other questions: How does the proposed addition of a screwtrap and weir in East Fork

Potlatch River relate to the A-Run and coho proposals by the NPT? This has broad

application across the basin and should be coordinated with other basin projects. The

sponsors focus on wild B steelhead on Fish Creek (best case scenario) to gather

background information on abundance and growth rates, parr age structure, migration

info, etc. This info is closely linked to NMFS BiOp. Reviewers expressed concern about

non-marked hatchery fish confounding monitoring and experiments.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

31

Salmon River Subbasin Proposals

6. Project ID: 199604300

Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement Project

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Enhance and monitor a weak but recoverable stock of native summer

chinook salmon in Johnson Creek. Construct facilities for adult collection and holding,

juvenile rearing and smolt acclimation.

FY02 Request: $4,410,100

3 YR Estimate: $6,740,688

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. Do not fund, except for M & E portion needed to tie in with ISS.

M&E should be funded at an appropriate level so that the Johnson Creek 'control' stream

data continue to be integrated into the ISS experimental design. This may require a joint

response from the NPT and IDFG (which is the lead agency for the ISS) that describes

how the Johnson Creek population will be re-integrated into the ISS study. See ISRP

comments on the set of Idaho Supplementation Studies above.

As initially planned, the Idaho Supplementation Study (ISS) was probably the best

supplementation study among the Provinces. It should be continued, but the ISRP has a

number of concerns that should be addressed while there is still time. This study

addresses the critical issue of the efficacy of supplementation to restore populations and

many resources have been committed to it. With the experimental design of the Yakima

Hatchery in question (not wild/wild and no hatchery/hatchery controls), retaining the

integrity of this experiment is crucial. It is important that the Idaho Supplementation

Studies be completed following the original approved experimental design.

The most critical ISRP concerns are:

1. the effect of the loss of Johnson Creek (previously a control stream) from the

experimental design, and

2. the effect of straying of hatchery fish into Lake Creek, the Secesh River, and other

designated “controls”.

As currently planned in project #199604300 “Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation

Enhancement Project”, Johnson Creek is neither a treatment nor a control stream in the

ISS because the criteria for stopping supplementation has been changed and does not

appear to match the timetable in the ISS. Supplementation activities in Johnson Creek

should cease immediately for the duration of the ISS study design, allowing Johnson

Creek to continue to be use as a ‘control’ stream, even given the recent limited

supplementation of it. (Note: a portion of the 2001 returning jacks are the first returning

fish from the limited Johnson Creek supplementation effort.)

To do minimal damage to the ISS study design, the ISRP recommends that Johnson

Creek now be considered a control stream (at least by year class!) and that
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

32

supplementation be stopped in Johnson Creek in accordance with the original timetable in

the ISS. The number of wild returning adults we observed earlier this month spawning in

Johnson Creek, and the number we are likely to observe next year, argue that

supplementation of Johnson Creek is not needed as an emergency action for a declining

stock at least through the duration of the ISS experiment.

As we understand the situation, the decision to remove Johnson Creek from the study was

beyond the control of some proponents of the ISS project. Nevertheless, we find it

unacceptable that the experimental design for study of such a critical issue as

supplementation would be compromised by a decision to remove a control stream from

the study. The only conclusion we can come to is that the proponents of the decision to

remove Johnson Creek from the supplementation study believe that they already know

the result, i.e., they believe supplementation works! A broad base of the scientific

community is in extreme disagreement with this conclusion, and it is unacceptable that

the best-designed study of supplementation would be compromised.

Project ID: 199107300

Idaho Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Identifies limiting factors and recommends methods to improve

adult-to-smolt and smolt-to-adult survival of chinook salmon and steelhead. Provides

long-term monitoring data to determine the effectiveness of recovery actions and

population status.

FY02 Request: $831,000

3 YR Estimate: $2,526,000

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. The proponents should address the need for development of a long

term Columbia River Basin (including the Salmon subbasin) probabilistic sampling

plan(s) for monitoring anadromous fishes, resident fishes, water quality, and other habitat

quality parameters. The proponents also need to provide documentation that common

monitoring methods are being used in the Salmon subbasin (e.g., project #199405000)

and that data and metadata are being provided to Streamnet (or other database if

Streamnet is not appropriate).

This is a good monitoring and evaluation program based on monitoring subjectively

selected streams and representative sites within strata on those streams. However,

experience based on the use of similar surveys of index sites in the coastal coho streams

of Oregon lead the ISRP to strongly recommend that the Idaho Provinces reassess the

current monitoring design and site selections in development of a more comprehensive

long-term monitoring program for all life history stages and species including resident

fish. The ISRP continues to believe that the project needs to undergo a programmatic

review, perhaps in conjunction with review of similar projects in Oregon, Washington,

and Montana.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

33

Monitoring and evaluation needs may be satisfied by the current survey sites and

monitoring program during a period of low seeding levels, but the ISRP doubts that the

project will meet the expectations and needs of the Province in the long term if

anadromous fish abundance increases. It would be foolish to abandon the current design

in the short term, but likewise foolish to not start integrating components of a design that

allows statistical inferences to be made to the entire Snake Subbasin, other Idaho

Subbasins, and individual important watersheds.

The ISRP recommends that the proponents of monitoring projects in the Idaho Provinces

work with the Oregon, Washington, and Montana Provinces to develop monitoring and

evaluation procedures with common field procedures and probabilistic site selection for

the entire Columbia Basin. The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Monitoring

Program (Nicholas 1997a, 1997b, 1999) as implemented in the Oregon coastal coho

streams and the southern Columbia Plateau Province (John Day, Deschutes, Walla Walla

(in Oregon) and Umatilla) is a Tier 2 level monitoring and evaluation program that may

serve as a good model. Also, see the section on monitoring in the introduction to this

report.

The proponents of this project should work closely with the proponents of Proposal

#28051, “Assess and Monitor Steelhead in the Middle Fork Salmon River Subbasin”, to

ensure that the probabilistic sampling plan envisioned in #28051 is compatible with long

range plans of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

All data should be made available via STREAMNET or other suitable electronic

database, as soon as possible.

Minor comments and suggestions:

The proponents indicate that they “Use the PTAGIS database and a program developed

by the ISS project to determine the disposition of detected PIT-tagged smolts.” Also,

they “Use those data and the model previously developed by INPMEP (Kiefer et al.

2001b) to estimate the number of PIT-tagged wild/natural smolts that migrated

uncollected past the four main collector dams.” The ISRP recommends that the

proponents corroborate with NMFS statisticians in Seattle to compare methods and

estimates for these important parameters.

The proponents should ensure the ISRP of cooperation with project #199102800,

“Monitoring smolt migrations of wild Snake River sp/sum chinook salmon” for lack of

overlap in application of PIT-TAGs to wild anadromous fish and sharing of information

on downstream detections and adult returns.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

34

Project ID: 199102800

Monitoring smolt migrations of wild Snake River sp/sum chinook salmon

Sponsor: National Marine Fisheries Service

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Collect time series information to examine migrational

characteristics of wild ESA-listed Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon stocks.

PIT tag wild chinook salmon parr annually; and subsequently monitor as parr/smolts at

stream traps and river dams.

FY02 Request: $350,000

3 YR Estimate: $1,050,000

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. The proponents should ensure the ISRP of cooperation with project

199107300 “Idaho Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation” for lack of overlap in

application of PIT-TAGs to wild anadromous fish and sharing of information on

downstream detections and adult returns.

This is a good proposal to continue a smolt monitoring project that provides invaluable

data basic to making management decisions affecting the stocks involved. The study

provides valuable basic data for making management decisions affecting the stocks

involved. There appears to be good cooperation between this project and other projects

in the Snake Basin for use of the monitoring data collected. The ISRP appreciates the

response to suggestions made in the FY00 review and the publication of project results.

The presenter indicated that the project recorded two to three times higher parr-to-smolt

survivals when parr densities in the streams were lower. This finding, if replicated in

time and space, has major implications for management of hatchery supplementation

outplanting and monitoring of adult escapement. This component of the project should

be given high priority.

Project ID: 199703000

Chinook Salmon Adult Abundance Monitoring

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe/Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Implement state-of-the-art technologies to accurately quantify

chinook salmon spawner abundance in the Secesh River, Lake and Marsh creeks. Adult

abundance data would allow a measure of recovery threshold abundance of a listed

species (NMFS 2000).

FY02 Request: $1,033,000

3 YR Estimate: $2,719,000

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. This is a long and rambling proposal that is hard to review, with a

rather large budget. Some reviewers have misgivings about the proposed technologies

and whether they will work. Some new documentation and justification for methods

were presented orally. These should be included in the proposal and the proposal should
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

35

be rewritten to better present the critical points, objectives, methods, and anticipated

results.

Development of a technique that gets a better count of salmon adults than from intensive

and repeated redd counts may be desirable but getting counts is not the only purpose of

redd surveys, which will probably have to continue anyway for various other purposes.

The proponents should provide evidence that the “high tech” approach is more

economical than “labor intensive on the ground surveys” using techniques reviewed in

Table 4 or mark-recapture of carcasses. Council should also consider the relative value of

low labor “high tech” methods versus intensive labor “low tech” methods for benefit to

local economies of the tribes and other local economies.

The statistical design for comparing video results with proposed electronic counts should

be described.

Council should simultaneously consider this proposal with the companion work proposed

on the Minam River in the Grande Ronde River subbasin, proposal 27019. The response

should address concerns from that proposal that apply here as well.

The proponents should provide past and future data (with metadata) via STREAMNET or

other suitable electronic database.

The proponents should address the relationship of this project to other projects to conduct

redd counts and assess adult escapement, specifically Proposal #28001 “Evaluate Factors

Influencing Bias and Precision of Chinook Salmon Redd Counts”. If the NPT/PNNL

hydroacoustic proposal numeration were funded and proves to be successful, would redd

counts become obsolete?

Project ID: 199902000

Analyze the Persistence and Spatial Dynamics of Snake River Chinook Salmon

Sponsor: USDA Forest Service- Rocky Mountain Research Station

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Results will advance current understanding of the relationship

between the distribution, pattern, and persistence of chinook salmon and landscape

patterns. **Note: the most appropriate RPA for this project is RME Action 180.

FY02 Request: $112,410

3 YR Estimate: $351,242

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. The intent of the project is to understand the factors determining

the distribution of spawning chinook salmon, based on observations made in the Middle

Fork Salmon River. The proposition is that spawning distribution depends on the amount

of habitat, the quality of habitat, and its proximity to other habitat.

This project has been underway since 1995, and has received BPA funding since 1999.

The proposal contains no description of results obtained to date. Reviewers’ support for

the proposal would be strengthened by a discussion of results obtained to date and plans
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

36

for publication. The proposal states that the "project will require additional years to

follow a complete generation or more of spawning fish to complete the analysis of spatial

structure". Please elaborate, and describe why field data from years 2002-2004 would be

pivotal.

Project ID: 28001

Evaluate Factors Influencing Bias and Precision of Chinook Salmon Redd Counts

Sponsor: USDA Forest Service- Rocky Mountain Research Station

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Results will assess redd count bias and precision and will have

important implications for improving chinook salmon redd surveys across the Snake

River basin.**Note: the most appropriate RPA for this project is RME Action 180.

FY02 Request: $198,738

3 YR Estimate: $626,522

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Responses to minor suggestions on improvement of study design are needed. This is an

excellent research proposal to evaluate biases and variation in common methods of

conducting redd counts. There is excellent cooperation with BPA project #199902000

(RMRS biologists plan to conduct annual aerial redd counts in the entire MFSR through

2004). Also, to assist collaboration and increase efficiency, some study reaches will be

selected to coincide with index reaches that are monitored annually by IDFG, the tribes,

and the USFS. The proponents appropriately identify their objectives as meeting the

intent of Action 180 in the 2000 Biological Opinion that specifically calls for funding of

Tier 1 and Tier 2 studies to collect data for population status monitoring

The ISRP agrees that the insights derived from this research could have important

applications for improving redd counts and assessing adult escapements currently

conducted by other entities across the Snake River basin and, in fact, for the entire

Columbia Basin.

In 1999, two of the current proponents submitted a proposal entitled “Evaluation of a

Mark-Resight Survey for Estimating Numbers of Redds” with BPA Project #20055. The

ISRP recommended the project for funding and commented: “A strong proposal that

provides a comparison between aerial and ground surveys of redds. This research is much

needed and should result in improved technique.” We continue to support this improved

proposal. Funding for the project was deferred, in part, because of the extremely low

escapements in 1999 and 2000. With anticipated increased escapements in the future, the

proponents should be able to meet their objectives.

The proponents should address the relationship of this project to the NPT/PNNL

hydroacoustic proposal No. 199703000. If the NPT/PNNL hydroacoustic proposal

numeration were funded and proves to be successful, would redd counts become

obsolete?

Minor suggestions for improvement of the proposal:

• Success of this project apparently depends on funding of Project #199902000. Are

other projects that include redd counts also necessary?
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

37

• In Task 2, the proponents note that different observers should be used in the ground

surveys and the aerial surveys. The ISRP notes that different observers should also

be used to prepare the “ground truth map of redd locations” in objective 1.

• The proponents note that the role of aerial and ground surveys may be reversed. It

seems that two analyses should always be conducted regardless of the outcomes, i.e.,

consider the redds detected by one survey as “marked” and determine if those are or

are not detected by the other survey.

• A third analysis would also seem to be useful. Consider the Study reaches in

Objective 1 with the “complete maps of redds” as of the date of following standard

ground and aerial surveys. That is, the maps are the first sample of a Lincoln-Petersen

survey, with covariates measured on the redds, etc. Then consider the standard

ground survey or aerial survey as the second sample and determine if the redds on the

map were or were not sighted. Probability of sighting redds during the ground survey

or aerial survey could be estimated by logistic regression on covariates. These

correction factors might then be evaluated for potential use in “correcting” other

ground or aerial surveys for visibility bias.

• Data and metadata should be made available via Streamnet or other suitable

electronic database.

• Finally, if effort can be allocated to measure the above covariates on a sample of

stream points “available” for constructing redds, then a model (resource selection

function of the covariates) for prediction of the relative probability that a point in the

stream will be used as a redd site could be developed.

Project ID: 28034

Chinook Salmon Smolt Survival and Smolt to Adult Return Rate Quantification, South

Fork Salmon River, Idaho

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Monitor smolt production and adult escapement in the South Fork

Salmon River with PIT-tag detections to provide SARs and R/S ratios as performance

measures.

FY02 Request: $660,000

3 YR Estimate: $1,890,000

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. The proponents should clarify the relationship of this project to

#199102800 “Monitoring smolt migrations of wild Snake River sp/sum chinook salmon.”

This is a good research proposal with the primary goal to calculate and monitor smolt-toadult returns (SARs) and recruits per spawner ratios (R/S) of summer chinook salmon in

the upper South Fork Salmon River basin. Study design has been carefully considered

including obtaining statistical estimates of the necessary sample sizes to achieve useful

results. Completion of this study, integrated with other ongoing studies in the basin,

should allow estimation of South Fork Salmon River Basin (SFSB) juvenile survival,

adult returns, SARs, and R/S (recruits per spawner). However, we found it strange that

the proponents did not discuss interaction with Project #199102800 “Monitoring smolt

migrations of wild Snake River sp/sum chinook salmon.” There is potential for overlap
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

38

based on the following statements from proposal #199102800 “Currently, we have five

environmental monitoring sites. The monitors are located in the streams near the Secesh

River juvenile migrant trap, the South Fork Salmon River trap by Knox Bridge, the

Marsh Creek trap, the Sawtooth Hatchery intake/trap, and the Valley Creek U. S.

Geological Survey site.” Also, project #199102800 indicates that they work at “South

Fork Salmon River-between river km 112 and 122, Valley County, Idaho.”

The proponents should ensure that their data and metadata are made available via

STREAMNET or other suitable electronic database.

Project ID: 28052

Adult Snake River steelhead monitoring in the South Fork Salmon River Basin.

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe/Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: We propose to initiate collection of baseline steelhead adult

abundance information critical for determining population status and viability in addition

to identifying potential management actions needed for Snake River steelhead in Johnson

Creek..

FY02 Request: $708,000

3 YR Estimate: $1,677,000

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. This is a proposal to 1.) attempt installation and maintenance of a

hydroacoustic counting station in Johnson Creek, and 2.) assess whether or not the

system will yield accurate counts of steelhead entering the system for spawning.

What evidence (describe results, including relative accuracy of alternative methods, for

trials in other similar settings) do you have that provides a convincing case that

“advanced hydroacoustic techniques” will provide accurate data (with physical

constraints, turbulence, occurrence of false targets, and “fall-back”) in conditions as

found in Johnson Creek? How will you account for “early” and “late” run fish, and for

fish passing during high flows when the weir has to be pulled? Isn’t the high flow period

most likely to cause significant error in hydroacoustic data? Placement of equipment in

secure locations under conditions in these streams is difficult at best. What structures are

planned that will withstand high flows (water, debris, bedload) that regularly occur in

Salmon River tributaries?

Objective 1. Is the sampling protocol for redds consistent with methods such as those

outlined by ODFW? What evidence do you have that counting redds for these steelhead

will produce useful data?

If funded, the emphasis should be on research and development and peer-reviewed

publication of results. If the proponents cannot produce convincing information to show

that a suitable installation can be made and maintained on “flashy” streams in similar

climatic conditions (and during runoff) and produce useful data, all similar proposals

(Lake Creek, Secesh River, Minam River, Johnson Creek, and Marsh Creek) should be
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

39

combined to a single research proposal to review the associated problems, describe

possible strategies to overcome these problems, and assess the potential of “high tech”

counting methods in conditions like those expected in streams of the Snake River basin.

If data from similar locations are available, the proponents should describe and discuss

the reliability and suitability of these data for meeting goals for Snake River salmonids.

If there is a convincing case that the technical problems can be addressed, the proponents

should contrast the cost of this “high tech” approach for estimating spawner abundance to

that of labor intensive but potentially more economical “on the ground probabilistic

surveys” using existing survey techniques or mark-recapture of carcasses. At any rate,

redd surveys are necessary in addition to accurate counts of spawners, and the ISRP

wonders if labor intensive mark-recapture of carcasses might be equally informative for

estimation of spawner abundance and also provide additional useful information on other

necessary life history parameters.

Project ID: 28051

Assess and Monitor Steelhead in the Middle Fork Salmon River Subbasin

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Assess current population status, dynamics and genetics of steelhead

in the Middle Fork Salmon River subbasin.

FY02 Request: $416,147

3 YR Estimate: $1,250,402

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. The proposal would be much more effective had it included a

detailed description of what is presently going on in the basin, a clear statement of goals

for these steelhead, and why the present program is deficient with respect to meeting the

goals. It needs to address question such as:

• How will managers use the data expected from the study?

• Was the need to do this work identified in the sub basin summary?

• What problem in the Middle Fork will be addressed using these data? How?

• Are existing genetic data inappropriate?

• Why do you need to expand the present genetic database?

• What management problem will be solved with the genetic data?

• How will your sampling be coordinated with other parr sampling? Specifically, what

is the relationship of this project to the current projects for monitoring production?

• Will these data be redundant or will existing data gathering be expanded? Why?

• What information suggests that monitoring of adult steelhead can be successful?

• Will your sampling contribute to jeopardy of these fish?

The ISRP strongly supports the proponents in their plans to establish snorkeling transects

for juvenile abundance utilizing a systematic sampling approach based on stream habitat

type. This is the first proposal to establish a probabilistic sampling plan for fish

abundance in the Idaho Provinces that we are aware of. The ISRP recommends that the

proponents go further and work with the Oregon, Washington, and Montana Provinces to
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

40

develop compatible monitoring and evaluation procedures with common field procedures

and probabilistic site selection for the entire Columbia Basin. The Oregon Plan for

Salmon and Watersheds Monitoring Program (Nicholas 1997a, 1997b, 1999) as

implemented in the Oregon coastal coho streams and the Columbia Plateau Province is a

Tier 2 statistical monitoring and evaluation program that can serve as a good model.

Also, see the section on monitoring in the introduction to this report.

The monitoring component for juvenile steelhead is fundable if a convincing response to

ISRP questions and comments is provided.

Project ID: 28009

Smolt Condition and Adult Returns: An Indirect Method of Assessing the Potential

Mitigation Benefits of Nutrient Enhancement Projects

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Proposes the development of a standard weight equation for chinook

salmon and steelhead trout smolts. The equation will provide a method to determine if

the condition of Snake River smolts is poor due to the lack of marine-driven nutrients.

FY02 Request: $44,600

3 YR Estimate: $44,600

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. This is a proposal to develop a tool for assessing whether a

population of salmonids could benefit from nutrient enrichment. The sponsors do not

describe how they will account for differences in population density on smolt size. The

proposal needs to show that the work will provide information beyond what we already

know from size-at-release studies at hatcheries.

Project ID: 28054

Evaluation of Pisces Fish Protective Guidance and Monitoring System

Sponsor: Balaton Power, Inc.

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Guide fish and monitor water conditions and fish passage

FY02 Request: $1,060,000

3 YR Estimate: $1,060,000

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. Reviewers were unclear as to why the proposal was part of the

Salmon ecological province. Proposed testing of the device would occur in a tributary of

the middle Snake River. It appears that it would be better served in a systemwide or

innovative review. If NMFS is positive on this technology, as mentioned in the

presentation, why is the project not a collaborative effort with NMFS?

Both proposal and presentation focused nearly exclusively on the technology rather than

the application. It is apparently intended for small hydro projects? If there is potential

utility or connection to Columbia basin hydro operations that should be clarified.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

41

Project ID: 28011

Incidental Mortality in Selective Sport Fisheries

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Conduct literature review and scoping for a contemporary study of

incidental mortality rates in selective sport fisheries.

FY02 Request: $200,000

3 YR Estimate: $700,000

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Do not fund. A response is not warranted. This is a request for funding to develop a

proposal for estimating impact of catch and release fishing on non-hatchery salmon and

steelhead in the Snake River. The background includes a statement that “Early work in

the Snake River basin led to the conclusion anadromous adults could be released in

selective fisheries with acceptable impacts (Pettit 1977).” The present proposal should

have included what about that assessment is faulty and how its shortcomings (and

shortcomings of other studies) will be overcome with a new study.

This issue has systemwide implications and a cooperative Columbia Basin wide study

may be more appropriate. The mainstem and systemwide solicitation will begin in late

fall and winter of 2001. A detailed proposal could be prepared in cooperation with other

interested parties for the mainstem or systemwide solicitation.

Project ID: 28006

Tag and evaluate PIT-tag retention in sub-yearling chinook salmon

Sponsor: Biomark, Inc.

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: We propose to PIT tag 12,000 sub-yearling chinook salmon as part

of an IDFG NATURES study being conducted in 2002. Additionally, we will determine

the rate of PIT-tag shedding in sub-yearling salmonids from 24 hours post-tagging to 30

days post-tagging.

FY02 Request: $82,044

3 YR Estimate: $82,044

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. The technical review suggests there is need for a thorough

exploration of the factors contributing to differences between recent studies and earlier

studies. The authors state “Biomark personnel collected a substantial number of shed

tags in raceways (10 days after tagging) at Priest Rapids dam.” The ISRP learned that a

“substantial number” of tags is from 2 to 6 percent! The ISRP recommends that a

workshop be convened to examine the significance of the perceived problem, and to

make recommendations for addressing the problem and analysis of existing results using

PIT tags. The response should describe the applicability of the study across species and

the basin?
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

42

The Council should consider whether this study is associated with Biomark’s product

development. If so, perhaps this would be better done through an independent RFP with

Biomark providing guidance.

Project ID: 199700100

Captive Rearing Project for Salmon River Chinook Salmon

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Develop captive rearing techniques for chinook salmon and evaluate

the success and utility of captive rearing for maintaining stock structure and conservation

levels of adult spawners in three drainages.

FY02 Request: $750,482

3 YR Estimate: $4,050,482

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. Reviewers appreciate sponsor’s effort to review what has

happened in past, and the detailed presentation of results and conclusions to date. The

project could benefit significantly, however, by including evaluation of performance (all

kinds) of the hatchery-produced fish.

The sponsors need to explain what is to be different about fish now being produced so

that there is some reason to do more assessment.

The project seems to have some inconsistent elements. For example, the goal is to

develop captive rearing techniques. Hasn’t NMFS been doing that with Puget Sound

chinook salmon for 20 or more years? An argument for initiating the project was to

preclude loss of important sub-populations of chinook salmon. By stocking experimental

fish in Bear Valley Creek, not one of the donor streams, isn’t the project potentially

increasing jeopardy for the sub-population inhabiting Bear Valley Creek? Also, why, in a

project to develop rearing techniques was it necessary to use three sub-populations?

The project goal was do develop culture techniques, and to assess the spawning success

in nature of the fish produced. Although the growth and survival of the experimental fish

has not been comparable to fish produced in nature, hasn’t that goal been met? It now

seems the goal has changed to one of improving growth, survival, and performance of the

fish produced. Why is this new goal necessary? If it is necessary, do growth, survival,

and performance of the fish produced have to be comparable to that of wild fish? Please

explain your intent here.

You propose to “ ...complete NPPC [NMFS] 4-step process to initiate artificial

propagation safety net programs for spring/summer chinook salmon. If this is now an

implementation project, isn’t it premature in the 4-step process?

One identified task is to develop HGMPs. Will this be done in collaboration with other

proposals to develop HGMPs (e.g., for hatcheries in the LSRCP)? If not, why not?
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

43

Redfish Lake Sockeye Program

All projects to preclude extinction of Stanley Basin sockeye salmon, should be subjected

to review by “outside experts.” An oversight committee exists, but they are viewing the

program as a series of funded projects that need to be forged into a recovery strategy. An

independent review could attempt to answer several questions including the following. Is

it now possible to depend on Sawtooth Hatchery to supplement production from the

associated lakes? Does the captive broodstock program remain a critical part of the

program? After several years, attempts to increase survival of sockeye salmon via lake

fertilization cannot provide convincing evidence that fertilization should continue; should

it continue? Both sockeye and kokanee salmon from remote locations have, in the past,

been stocked in Stanley Basin lakes. How strong is supporting evidence that Stanley

Lake Basin sockeye salmon still exist?

1. Project ID: 199107200

Redfish Lake Sockeye Salmon Captive Broodstock Program

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Establish captive broodstocks of Redfish Lake sockeye salmon.

Spawn captive adults to produce eggs, juveniles, and adults for reintroduction and future

broodstock needs. Evaluate juvenile out-migration and adult returns by release option.

FY02 Request: $853,229

3 YR Estimate: $3,044,520

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. Reviewers appreciate the sponsor’s effort to provide detailed

report of project history and results to date!

The program helped to return 257 adult fish to the Stanley Basin in 2000, and many of

which were a result of the multi-agency program. Similar results were not realized in

2001. Given the success of other anadromous salmonids in 2001, to what do the sponsors

attribute the poor showing of this program?

Direct release of juveniles to the lake seems to produce best results. Are other salmonids

stocked in the lake? If so, what are the densities of these fish in fall compared to

summer?

You reported a difference in body fat between fish reared at different hatcheries. Are

these differences associated with fish released at different locations and times? It appears

that best results were from matings at Big Beef Creek that were transferred as eyed-eggs

to Bonneville for rearing and then to Stanley Basin for release. What is the suspected

reason for that result?

Is there some chance that you are overstocking Redfish Lake? How does dominance of

age-0 fish explain the low biomass estimate?
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

44

What is the numeric goal for each population? What are the criteria for delisting? What

are the benchmarks for either claiming success or failure of the project?

2. Project ID: 199204000

Redfish Lake Sockeye Salmon Captive Broodstock Rearing and Research

Sponsor: National Marine Fisheries Service

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Provide a safety net captive broodstock program for Redfish Lake

sockeye salmon. Provide prespawning adults, eyed eggs, and smolts to aid recovery of

this ESA-listed endangered species in Idaho

FY02 Request: $1,600,000

3 YR Estimate: $3,191,200

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Not applicable. Scientific issues are not central to the decision. This is the NMFS captive

rearing program in support of the Stanley Basin sockeye salmon program. The need for

this project is integrally linked to that program. Part of the request is to purchase a

freshwater hatchery that is presently leased, near Manchester, WA, to support the

program. The expectation on behalf of project sponsors is that they will need this facility

for the sockeye program during the next decade. Sponsors feel that the property owner

can cancel the present leasing arrangement at any time, thus jeopardizing the program.

3. Project ID: 199107100

Snake River Sockeye Salmon Habitat and Limnological Research

Sponsor: Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Enhance and monitor freshwater rearing habitat for juvenile Snake

River sockeye. Evaluate the effects of nutrient addition and fish stocking on the lake's

ecosystems and growth and survival of planted juvenile sockeye.

FY02 Request: $441,369

3 YR Estimate: $1,370,558

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. What would the project sponsor’s recommendation be at the

present time regarding use of lake fertilization to increase survival of Stanley Basin

sockeye salmon? Please use existing results to support your recommendation. Are

kokanee that are prevented access to spawning areas, killed and returned to the lake as a

nutrient enhancement? Given the error (sampling and species identification) that you

have identified, are the hydroacoustic data useful?

It appears that the only data to assess sockeye overwinter survival (that permit

comparison) are those from Pettit Lake pre-fertilization (30.2%) and during fertilization

(36.4%). Is that correct, and is there any way to assign that difference to fertilization?
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

45

Salmon River Subbasin Habitat Restoration and Protection Proposals

Project ID: 199401500

Idaho Fish Screen Improvement

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Enhance passage of juvenile and adult fish in Idaho's anadromous

fish corridors by consolidation and elimination of irrigation diversions. Minimize

adverse fish impacts of irrigation diversion dams by screening pump intakes and canals.

FY02 Request: $1,000,000

3 YR Estimate: $3,148,050

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Fundable if the proponents include monitoring data shown at the presentation in their

proposal and if they report on the maintenance protocols. A response to the ISRP is not

necessary; the ISRP concerns can be addressed by the Council in the project selection

process or BPA in the contracting process. The Washington program has an established

protocol for effectiveness monitoring that may provide a good model. This would ensure

consistency across the basin. The proposal is adequate for multiyear funding or until

completion in 2005.

This is an excellent proposal to continue an expensive fish screening program. There

appears to be good collaboration among agencies and landowners. The proposal notes

that screening should be complete by 2005.

The primary criticism in the FY00 review by the ISRP was the lack of monitoring and

evaluation of results. The reviewers suggested incorporating monitoring and evaluation

protocols and benchmarks into the project. The current proponents state that several

screens were monitored by catching all fish diverted from the irrigation canal back to the

river via the by-pass pipe. Six fish screens on the Lemhi River by-passed 841 fish in 150

days of the 1997 irrigating season. Two screens passed 632 (98%) steelhead during the

irrigation season on the Pahsimeroi River. However, there is no indication of an

appropriate consistent monitoring and evaluation protocol (e.g., systematic sample survey

for screen effectiveness) that can be repeated over time. Perhaps a systematic sample of

projects could be visited each year such that all are surveyed over a 5-year period. The

ISRP does not expect a research level monitoring and evaluation scientific study. Tier I

monitoring for effectiveness of the project, as described in the introduction to this report,

should be sufficient. It may be sufficient to have a regular schedule for checking

effectiveness of previous projects, some periodic search of irrigation ditches downstream

of screens, monitoring of water temperature returning from irrigation ditches, etc. The

Washington protocol may serve as a good model.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

46

Project ID: 28035

Geomorphic Controls on Watershed-scale Availability of Chinook Salmon Spawning

Habitat in the Salmon River

Sponsor: University of Idaho, USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Quantify geomorphic controls on watershed-scale availability of

sediment sizes suitable for chinook spawning.

FY02 Request: $133,625

3 YR Estimate: $400,875

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. The project proposes to quantify geomorphic controls on the

availability of sediment sizes in the Middle Fork Salmon River by assessing validation of

a geomorphic model, derived in a western Washington stream setting, that incorporates

sediment grain size, relationship to slope and shear stresses. If successful, it might enable

the utilization of remote sensing to identify and quantify potential spawning habitat. The

researchers are highly competent. However in the minds of reviewers performance of

this task would not significantly contribute to the goals of the FWP, especially in the

Salmon subbasin where spawning substrate is well identified and clearly not in short

supply. The response should clearly demonstrate the benefits of this project to fish, and

the Fish and Wildlife Program.

Salmon Basin Soil and Water Conservation Proposals

1. Project ID: 199202603

Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project Administration/Implementation Support

Sponsor: Idaho Soil Conservation Commission and Idaho Office of Species

Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Provide local coordination and guidance for implementation of onthe-ground projects that improve and enhance anadromous and resident fish habitat.

FY02 Request: $285,364

3 YR Estimate: $870,364

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed for this collection of 6 numbered projects. The fencing projects,

screening projects, and some additional actions in the watershed appear warranted and

will likely benefit fish. The past actions on fencing the creeks and letting the streams

restore themselves without planting or channel modification are justified for those sites.

However, the set of proposals goes beyond “flat-tire” fixes. Consequently, the program

needs a well-defined watershed assessment and project prioritization effort with a

protocol for sampling projects for effectiveness monitoring. Evidence, including data,

should be provided that monitoring conducted by other projects is sufficient to evaluate

overall trends in numbers of adult and juvenile anadromous species in these subbasins

and watersheds. These points are alluded to in the proposal and presentation, but the

response should provide more detail.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

47

In terms of working with EDT, the sponsors should consider conferring with Bruce

Watson of the Yakama Nation fish and wildlife department.

The presentation was broken into a series of sub-presentations based on geography. Most

listed the usual list of limiting factors, but did not provide much insight into proposed

future actions. The list of opportunities for actions was fairly comprehensive, but did not

provide a sense of prioritized actions. Many different agencies are doing many different

kinds of monitoring. There seems to be opportunity for improvement and coordination.

The Lemhi has laudatory involvement from local stakeholders, as well as a functioning

technical committee in place.

There seems to be a disconnect between the “fix the flat-tire” approach and the

prioritization effort described in the presentation. Although some problems are obvious,

what is the strategy? Should they start at the bottom or top of watershed? Start fixing the

portion with best spawning or rearing habitat?

The ISRP does not expect a research level monitoring and evaluation scientific study in

this project. Tier I trend monitoring for effectiveness of the project, as described in the

introduction to this report, should be sufficient. It may be sufficient to have a regular

schedule for checking effectiveness of previous projects, monitoring of water

temperatures and cover habitat, etc., e.g., a small systematic sample of projects might be

monitored for effectiveness each year so that over a 5 year period, all are surveyed for

basic measures.

It does not appear that any of the current monitoring is sufficient to make statistical

inferences to these subbasins and watersheds.

The proponents should clarify if or when data from these projects will be available in

StreamNet with metadata (methods).

The review group suggests that future terrestrial monitoring efforts be made compatible

with one of the national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of the

National Resources Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve the

region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews in the

Columbia Plateau.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

48

2. Project ID: 28036

Holistic Restoration of Critical Habitat on Non-federal Lands in the Pahsimeroi

Watershed, Idaho

Sponsor: Custer Soil & Water Conservation District / Idaho Governor's Office of

Species Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Collaborative effort to implement projects on non-federal lands that

are effective at improving habitat conditions (and survival rates) for native anadromous

and resident salmonids in the Pahsimeroi watershed, Idaho.

FY02 Request: $2,606,341

3 YR Estimate: $7,926,041

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

See comments on project 199202603.

3. Project ID: 28038

Holistic Restoration of Critical Habitat on Non-federal Lands, East Fork Salmon

Watershed, Idaho

Sponsor: Custer Soil & Water Conservation District / Idaho Governor's Office of

Species Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Collaborative effort to implement projects on non-federal lands that

are effective at improving habitat conditions (and survival rates) for native anadromous

and resident salmonids in the East Fork Salmon watershed, Idaho.

FY02 Request: $2,608,084

3 YR Estimate: $7,879,984

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

See comments on project 199202603. Descriptions given during field tour convinced

reviewers that Shoshone Bannock Tribe has been doing a good job of communicating

with East Fork landowners. This suggests that this program would be more effective with

their involvement.

4. Project ID: 28040

Holistic Restoration of Critical Habitat on Non-federal Lands, Upper Salmon Watershed,

Idaho

Sponsor: Custer Soil & Water Conservation District / Idaho Governor's Office of

Species Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Collaborative effort to implement projects on non-federal lands that

are effective at improving habitat conditions (and survival rates) for native anadromous

and resident salmonids in the Upper Salmon watershed, Idaho.

FY02 Request: $2,567,545

3 YR Estimate: $7,847,045

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

See comments on project 199202603.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

49

5. Project ID: 28039

Holistic Restoration of Habitat on Non-federal Lands, Middle Salmon-Panther

Watershed, Idaho

Sponsor: Lemhi Soil & Water Conservation District / Idaho Governor's Office of

Species Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Collaborative effort to implement projects on non-federal lands that

are effective at improving habitat conditions (and survival rates) for native anadromous

and resident salmonids in the Middle Salmon-Panther watershed, Idaho.

FY02 Request: $1,863,326

3 YR Estimate: $5,688,526

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

See comments on project 199202603.

6. Project ID: 28037

Holistic Restoration of Critical Habitat on Non-federal Lands in the Lemhi Watershed,

Idaho

Sponsor: Lemhi Soil & Water Conservation District / Idaho Governor's Office of

Species Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Collaborative effort to implement projects on non-federal lands that

are effective at improving habitat conditions (and survival rates) for native anadromous

and resident salmonids in the Lemhi watershed, Idaho.

FY02 Request: $3,238,682

3 YR Estimate: $9,839,182

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

See comments on project 199202603.

Project ID: 199901900

Holistic Restoration of the Twelvemile Reach of the Salmon River near Challis, Idaho

Sponsor: Custer Soil & Water Conservation District/Idaho Governor's Office of Species

Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Work holistically to restore the channelized Salmon River corridor to

a natural meandering form in balance with watershed processes that will restore

geomorphic diversity, reduce bank erosion, lower summer temperatures and improve

critical fish habitat.

FY02 Request: $1,844,000

3 YR Estimate: $5,158,000

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. The response should clarify the priority of this reach for this level

of restoration activity. A watershed assessment should indicate the priority of this effort.

For example, if high stream temperature generated upstream is the key limiting factor,

this project is likely secondary in priority. Is this the critical reach that needs to be
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

50

restored at this time? Or, is this a unique, time-limited opportunity to protect fish habitat

in this reach of private land?

This section of the Salmon is indeed a problem, and is little used for summer rearing.

However, the cause may be because of water temperature. Riparian improvement would

be a good thing to do, but because of the width of stream and potentially relatively warm

water entering from above that is also exposed to warming through a rocky reach,

reviewers were cautious regarding the efficacy of the expensive, heavily engineered

approach proposed. Stream temperature modeling should be used to assess if habitat

changes as proposed could significantly reduce summer temperature of water to within

the range acceptable to salmonids.

No data on fish are presented. Instead this is described as a holistic project. As in the Red

River meadow project (Clearwater subbasin), the lack of ties actually made to fish habitat

and production should be rectified.

Detailed plans must be given (or referenced) for monitoring and evaluation. Plans for

construction should be reviewed by an independent engineering group before final

funding.

This is a long rambling complicated proposal that is difficult to review from a scientific

and technical point of view. The bottom line in the previous FY00 review by the ISRP

was that “....we focus primarily on the scientific and technical merits of proposed

projects. It goes against the ISRP’s Congressionally-mandated directives and good

scientific common sense to recommend advancement of projects for funding that do not

have a master plan (or its equivalent) in place that define critical elements of project

planning, experimental design, and monitoring and evaluation.”

In the current proposal, the proponents indicate that studies of the geomorphology of the

reach, completed during the past two years, have documented the recent changes and

problems associated with local stabilization projects. It is also stated that “The Walla

Walla District Corps of Engineers is conducting a Feasibility Study under Section 206,

Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration on the 12 mile reach of the Salmon River near Challis,

Idaho.” ... “The feasibility portion of this project is expected to be completed in late

winter of 2002 with construction beginning during the summer of 2002. Construction is

likely to occur over the course of several years as different landowners become partners.”

As in the FY00 review, if this proposal is funded it is necessary to take much of it on

faith that the program is technically sound and will have biological benefits.

The proponents indicate that some monitoring data are available. Simple graphs or tables

presenting past results should be included in the proposal. Monitoring and evaluation is

proposed, but in very general terms. Details on exactly what variables are to be measured

and what methods are to be used must be included or references given to published

documentation. A good model to be used for detailing monitoring and evaluation plans is

contained in Proposal #28016.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

51

There are aspects of the proposed budget that appear to be inconsistent for the 2003 out

year costs of obtaining critical conservation/access easements.

Project ID: 28016

Restoration of the Yankee Fork Salmon River

Sponsor: Custer Soil & Water Conservation District, Idaho Governor's Office of Species

Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Restore the natural river channel characteristics, floodplain function,

sediment regime, and aquatic habitat within the dredged reach of the Yankee Fork.

Reconnect the remaining quality habitat, thereby increasing the biological integrity of the

basin.

FY02 Request: $799,785

3 YR Estimate: $3,213,505

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. The proponents should clarify the need for an upper watershed

assessment and whether the dredged reach is a bottleneck for reaching good upstream

habitat. Project history states that a contract was developed to determine the feasibility of

the project. What was the result of this analysis? Did the analysis conclude that

significant gains in productive salmonid habitat could be gained from this project? This

proposal needs to include a convincing case that it is feasible, and that significant benefits

to fish populations will result from this rather expensive project. Further clarification is

needed of the role of Simplot Corp. Will they forego future development rights in the

conservation easement?

The project might be fundable in stages as the conservation easement is obtained and

concrete plans for restoration construction are available. Plans for construction should be

reviewed by an independent engineering group before final funding.

The proponents have accomplished impressive preliminary planning, cooperation with

state, federal, and university personnel, completion of watershed analysis by USFS, and

other pilot work in 1999-2001. The ISRP is sympathetic to the fact that detailed designs

for restoration cannot be given at this time, however, if funded, much of the proposal

must be taken on faith that technically sound procedures will be implemented to provide

biological benefits.

The plans for monitoring and evaluation are well done.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

52

Project ID: 28008

Riparian Conservation Easement Purchase of Scarrow Property on Lake Creek a

Tributary to the Secesh River, Idaho.

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Acquisition of sensitive riparian area to protect water quality above

wild summer chinook spawning grounds.

FY02 Request: $68,500

3 YR Estimate: $68,500

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. This project would give fairly good protection to this riparian area,

the last private land in the subwatershed. This property is three miles above known

chinook spawning habitat. The proponents should clarify that three-listed species occur

on the property and that redd trends are increasing, or was this statement in reference to

the Bergdorf property?

The ISRP questioned whether a conservation easement might be feasible on the entire 60

acres. If funded, the project should have a plan for Operations and Management of the

property with indication of required funding if any. In addition, plans should be included

for monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness (Tier 1) of the conservation easement

over time with indication of required funding if any. The response should describe these

plans.

Why were current resumes not given for this proposal?

Lower Salmon Habitat Protection and Restoration Proposals

1. Project ID: 28044

Protect and Restore Deer Creek Watershed

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries/Watershed

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Protect and restore valuable fluvial aquatic habitat by improving

riparian and watershed conditions in upper watershed through watershed assessment and

restoration activities in Deer Creek watershed.

FY02 Request: $155,213

3 YR Estimate: $669,213

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. This is a proposal to improve habitat for resident fish and wildlife

along Deer Creek above the falls. Reviewers question the value provided by stream

habitat restoration if the dominant benefactor is brook trout, as appears to be the case

here.

According to the proposal, the Nez Perce Tribe currently owns 27% of the watershed and

proposes to conduct an Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale (EWAS) to describe

current conditions and make management decisions. There is an apparent lack of current

management consensus with the Idaho Department of Fish & Game, which owns half of
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

53

the watershed, and the EWAS is proposed as a method to enable consensus. To what

extent do IDFG and other landowners advocate EWAS preparation? Also, the EWAS

approach relies on the expertise of an interdisciplinary team (IDT). To what extent

would the Deer Creek IDT members represent a variety of groups and agencies?

Deer Creek is a site being considered for reservoir construction by NPT (under proposal

199501300, Resident Fish Substitution Program). This was not mentioned in this

proposal. What are the implications of possible reservoir construction to this proposal?

Also, a response is needed that addresses the option of buying out the grazing lease

instead of building and maintaining fence. Please clarify the numbers and ownership of

stock involved and the timing of current grazing.

2. Project ID: 28018

Lower Salmon River Tributary Protection and Enhancement

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Protect and enhance important aquatic and terrestrial habitats in

Salmon River tributaries.

FY02 Request: $101,000

3 YR Estimate: $1,048,000

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. The project would acquire land and conservation easements in

lower Salmon River tributaries (from French Creek near Riggins to Salmon-Snake

confluence), an approach that has been endorsed by reviewers in other subbasins as an

effective way to preserve and restore fish and wildlife resources. However, this proposal

provides only general statements of what will be done. There is no material to review for

technical merit.

A response is requested that identifies the basics of the prioritization process that would

be used to assess the merits of prospective purchases and easements. Reviewers feel that

at this point, for aquatic habitats, the proposing agency would profit from the

development of a watershed assessment procedure (EDT or similar) that identifies

priority areas and strategies.

Additionally, a response is needed that shows evidence of active coordination of this

proposal with the Nez Perce Tribe's proposal 28010. Both are in the same area and

propose similar strategies, i.e. acquisitions including easements and outright purchases.

The review group suggests that future terrestrial monitoring efforts be made compatible

with one of the national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of the

National Resources Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve the

region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews in the

Columbia Plateau.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

54

3. Project ID: 28010

Nez Perce Salmon River Terrestrial

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Protect, enhance, and restore native canyon grassland, and associated

riparian habitats within the Lower Salmon and Little Salmon River Watersheds, along

with high elevation wet meadows which are the headwaters and water storage systems for

the same.

FY02 Request: $2,801,996

3 YR Estimate: $8,826,742

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. This is a proposal for future acquisition of 3,000 acres/year of

terrestrial habitat in the Little Salmon watershed and in the Lower Salmon from

Whitebird Creek to the Salmon-Snake confluence. It addresses a clear set of general

needs in those areas. Nevertheless, more attention to the planned approach, criteria for

prioritization of possible acquisitions (including ties to anadromous fish habitat where

appropriate) seem warranted.

The monitoring and evaluation section is particularly appreciated by the ISRP. The

review group suggests that the monitoring effort be made compatible with one of the

national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of the National Resources

Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve the region well. See the

Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews in the Columbia Plateau.

Additionally, a response is needed that shows evidence of active coordination of this

proposal with the Idaho Department of Fish & Game's proposal 28018. Both are in the

same area and propose similar strategies, i.e. acquisitions including easements and

outright purchases.

4. Project ID: 28050

Protect and Restore Little Salmon River

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries/Watershed

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Protect valuable riparian corridor and fluvial aquatic habitat while

increasing habitat quality and quantity within the mainstem Little Salmon river basin.

FY02 Request: $262,896

3 YR Estimate: $560,538

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. The proposal would "partner" with landowner group to improve

riparian habitat, and demonstrates good interactive potential between NPT and

landowners. Would the 2.5 miles of restored riparian habitat be accessible to the public?

The proposal provided inadequate information on fish resources in the immediate project

area. Please clarify and discuss how project actions might benefit those populations.

Reviewers note that the photos in the proposal of stream restoration in Colorado and

Montana were not helpful in evaluating the project.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

55

Because the property is 1 mile above the Little Salmon Creek falls, benefit to

anadromous fish is very indirect and a weak case is made for any such benefit. Has

restoring passage above the falls been considered by the proposers and is that a future

possibility? If so, why is that not being proposed (or addressed) now?

Reviewers concur that some physical monitoring is needed to assess habitat response, but

do not agree that physical monitoring can satisfactorily replace fish population

monitoring. Please describe an appropriate fish monitoring program that would be part of

the project.

5. Project ID: 28049

Restore and Protect Slate Creek Watershed

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries Watershed

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Restore and protect the Slate Creek Watershed for the benefit of both

resident and anadromous fish using an overall watershed approach. Restoration and

protection efforts will be done cooperatively with the Nez Perce National Forest.

FY02 Request: $231,841

3 YR Estimate: $966,099

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. This is a clearly written proposal that target specific restoration

activities and shows good familiarity with Slate Creek. Excellent collaboration between

the Nez Perce Tribe and the Nez Perce National Forest that administers 93% of the

watershed is evident. An Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale has recently been

completed by the NPNF and was provided to reviewers.

While most proposed activities appear consistent with the EWAS, objective 5, to restore

the "missing" meander of Gold Lake Creek was not identified as a significant problem in

the subbasin summary and reviewers did not notice discussion of it in the EWAS. Please

clarify and provide detail of expected benefits from this relatively costly proposed action.

Monitoring and evaluation, especially of fish populations, was inadequately described in

the proposal. Please provide additional M & E detail. Also, the review group suggests

that future terrestrial monitoring efforts be made compatible with one of the national

terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of the National Resources Inventory

survey sites and data collection protocols would serve the region well. See the Proposals

#200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews in the Columbia Plateau.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

56

6. Project ID: 28058

Restore Fish Passage and Habitat in the Upper East Fork of the South Fork of the Salmon

River

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality - Idaho Office of Species

Conservation

Short Description: Restoration of fish passage and aquatic and riparian habitat through a

historic open pit mine which created a migration barrier in the middle of the east Fork of

the South Fork of the Salmon River (EFSFSR)

FY02 Request: $842,000

3 YR Estimate: $894,000

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. The project would restore fish passage by remediating a Stibnite

mine "legacy". The site is no doubt a major source of sediment in the basin that should

have been stabilized long ago. The biologist associated with the project assures

reviewers that improving fish passage is not likely to also improve conditions for exotics

such as brook trout. However, the response should provide additional information

regarding expected gains in fish populations if passage is restored. To what extent would

the 7 miles of habitat available above the Glory Hole barrier be usable for spawning and

rearing by anadromous stocks?

Reviewers note that a major attribute of the proposal is that it involves staff from a

number of state agencies and the Nez Perce Tribe. A more definitive indication of the

level of support from the Idaho Department of Fish & Game, indicating their perspective

on fish benefits from the project, would be helpful.

Please elaborate on the extent to which this action might be time-limited. The proposal

states "if funds are not made available very soon, the project will be abandoned and fish

passage to the Upper EFSFSR [will] be impaired until well after threatened and

endangered species recovery efforts have been completed". For example, what is "very

soon" and what would be the effect of abandonment?

Some funds are allocated to fisheries and macroinvertebrate monitoring during and after

construction, but no methods are described. Please describe the basics of that program,

and also how the post-project ability of anadromous fish to pass above the barrier will be

assessed. Compatibility with methods of monitoring in other projects such as the Idaho

natural production monitoring studies should be assured.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

57

Project ID: 28019

Improve Stream Habitat by Reducing Discharge from Animal Feeding Operations

Sponsor: ISDA, IOSC

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Enhance tributary and main stem fish habitat and water quality by

reducing direct discharge and run-off from Animal Feeding Operations by supporting onfarm improvement with cost-share funding and technical assistance.

FY02 Request: $2,026,000

3 YR Estimate: $2,026,000

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. This proposal is a request for funds to identify feed lots that

degrade local water quality. The proposal is similar to several others that request funds

for an activity that has no specific objectives other than identifying and fixing problems.

There is no informational support provided for a contention that these sites pose further

threat for endangered salmon. Plans for survey and prioritization of projects are needed.

Biological problems need to be identified and justification given that injuries to fish and

fish habitat are occurring. Is the problem sediments? Temperature? Nutrients? They

would address run-off and streambank degradation issues.

Are there USDA programs, e.g. the CRP and CREP programs to provide fenced buffers

along streams, that could be brought to bear to help solve the anticipated problems?

What are the perceived magnitudes of the problems and what are some of the proposed

solutions? What are the estimated benefits to water quality that would come from

completion of this assessment and enrollment of local livestock owners into this

program?

Project ID: 199405000

Salmon River Habitat Enhancement M & E

Sponsor: Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Maintain habitat improvements and evaluate benefits; monitor

salmonid populations and habitat parameters; coordinate land and water stewardship

activities; coordinate planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of new

improvements and protections

FY02 Request: $249,500

3 YR Estimate: $755,000

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. The proponents need to provide documentation that common

monitoring methods are being used in these watersheds and other watersheds in the

Salmon subbasin and that data and metadata are being provided to Streamnet (or other

database if Streamnet is not appropriate).

This project continues to focus on monitoring and evaluation of results of previously

completed and ongoing restoration work. Ongoing projects are adequately justified with

references to methods and results, however, it is not clear that methods are the same as

for other monitoring programs in the Snake Basin, e.g., Project #199107300 “Idaho
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

58

Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation.” The proponents should corroborate with

principal investigators on other monitoring and evaluation projects to ensure that results

are comparable among projects and areas within the basin.

It is not clear that original monitoring sites were selected by a probabilistic sampling

method to allow statistical inferences to be drawn to the entire study area(s). Also, it is

not clear if the sites are part of a Snake Basin wide monitoring and evaluation program,

e.g., project #199107300 “Idaho Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation.” The

ISRP recommends that the proponents of monitoring projects in the Idaho Provinces

work with the Oregon, Washington, and Montana Provinces to begin to develop

monitoring and evaluation procedures with common field procedures and probabilistic

site selection for the entire Columbia Basin. The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds

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

coastal coho streams and the Columbia Plateau Province is a Tier 2 level monitoring and

evaluation program that can serve as a good model. Also, see the section on monitoring

in the introduction to this report.

The review group suggests that future terrestrial monitoring efforts be made compatible

with one of the national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of the

National Resources Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve the

region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews in the

Columbia Plateau.

Clearwater Subbasin Proposals

Project ID: 28004

Lawyer Creek Subwatershed-Steelhead Trout Habitat Improvement Project

Sponsor: Lewis Soil Conservation District

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Reduce sedimentation to improve instream habitat in Lawyer Creek

and the lower Clearwater River, and improve upland water storage by implementing best

management practices for sediment reduction and water retention.

FY02 Request: $246,500

3 YR Estimate: $679,500

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. This project’s part of the field tour was very informative on

agricultural aspects and on sediment yield from treated vs. untreated cropland.

Effectiveness of the no-till cropping BMP is particularly impressive. The proposal helps

define the problem with pertinent background information on wild fish stocks, however,

it neither specifies M&E of fish population responses under the project nor states

coordination with any other project with respect to biological M&E. The oral

presentation was clear but had the disadvantage of revealing a certain lack of

coordination of the project with a related project, 28021, i.e., the BMPs for 28004 should

accommodate some of the needs expressed in 28021. Personnel from both projects should

consult and reach agreements.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

59

The proposal discusses (p. 11) its relationship to Project 28029 (though the number

apparently did not exist at time of writing) and states that the two are complementary and

non-duplicative.

A modeling analysis suggested that higher peak flows and greater volume of flow have

resulted from past agricultural practices. What does this same model suggest regarding

the benefits of the work proposed here? It is later suggested in the proposal that 10-yr

peak flows could be reduced by 39% by a basin-wide change in land use. Is a basin-wide

change in land use planned? If not, how much of an impact might be anticipated? To

answer this, some indication of the area treated and benefit of the several BMPs would

have to be quantified but that information is lacking. Please provide.

This is basic habitat management, protection and rehabilitation, but it is important that

the effort flows from a comprehensive watershed management plan that begins with a

condition assessment. To address the limiting factors that a well-planned and

documented assessment should reveal, information on the conditions and their effect on

survival through freshwater life stages of salmonids must be indicated or referenced.

What species and what life stages are negatively responding to low flows, high

temperatures, and sedimentation, or a lack of quality pools and cover, how, where and

when, and to what comparative level? Of these, which is the priority and how might they

be addressed?

This proposal focuses only on the upland work using BMPs. An excellent field

presentation of innovative approaches to be included under this land use treatment was

provided. BMPs seem appropriate, but should work not also include riparian silviculture

and in-stream habitat? Proper functioning condition includes all of the ecosystem

components, thus this proposal must be tied to the overall watershed assessment and

prescription. Provide this document.

As a treatment approach, BMPs are attractive, and a well-planned adaptive management

experiment in use of BMPs may be possible with some coordinated effort among subbasins. Some tributaries might be selected for treatment with appropriate BMPs while

others are not, recognizing that there will also be a need to consider the effect of

environmental variability in the experiment design and analysis. The advice of a

biometrician and experimental analyst is suggested, along with a cooperative effort from

a school of agriculture and land use or ecology for more detailed work. Thus, three

layers of response monitoring are suggested, including a before-after trend in physical

variables (depending on the treatment, but likely flow, temperature and sediment), more

detailed assessment of the physical and biological (fish) response as part of an overall

basin approach, and/or experimental research on BMPs. Which layer do they choose?

Please provide a summary of how this work was (will be) coordinated through the Focus

Group (199706000 and 199608600).

Monitoring and evaluation by means of modeling approaches, as suggested, can be

instructive, but a control and treatment comparison of flow regimes, temperature,
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

60

sedimentation (TDS?) and the fish response must be included, along with a clear

indication of this project’s connection with a basin-wide program of M&E. Likewise, an

analysis of risk and uncertainty would aid reviews and planning (i.e., how much work

must be completed before a positive impact is measurable, or what is the likelihood of

failure?).

Sharon Kinzer et al provide several newsletters annually, an excellent approach for

promoting participation and information exchange locally, but more detailed and

scientific reporting is also required, including not only the work accomplishments but

also information on response indicators and success or failure in meeting the goals of

protecting and enhancing fish production.

Selway Falls

1. Project ID: 28013

RENOVATE SELWAY FALLS ANADROMOUS FISH PASSAGE TUNNEL

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: The Selway River anadromous fish tunnel was constructed in the late

1960' in an effort to provide improved passage conditions through the Selway Falls

complex. Since that time the infrastructure has deteriorated and requires renovation.

FY02 Request: $344,700

3 YR Estimate: $344,700

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. Reviewers were not convinced that the falls were an obstruction;

benefits to fish were not adequately demonstrated. Has this been a recommended action

from the Clearwater Focus Group? The response should provide material (perhaps

including additional photos) that shows the natural falls are or are not an obstruction. If it

is a demonstrated problem, the response should describe the options of blasting. This

project was proposed in the High Priority Review and has been adjusted since then.

The reviewers were impressed by the fact that 5 of the marked steelhead did surmount the

falls (and no evidence exists that all or most of the 13 that used the tunnel could not have

gone over the falls instead if the tunnel were absent). Also, the photos indicate that the

falls pose less of a fish passage problem than other falls that steelhead surmount. If water

were not diverted by the tunnel and instead went over the falls, the falls might be even

more passable than it now is, depending on the volume involved. It is also possible that

the tunnel structure diminishes the passability of the falls in other ways. The applicant

should consider removing the tunnel if it is a potential obstruction. The proposal should

discuss the positive selective pressure exerted by the falls on the fish population.

A review of the site by hydrological engineers and biologists experienced in fish passage

issues is recommended, followed by a re-submission of a prescribed solution to the

problem if it remains of concern.

We were informed that there is not consensus among managers regarding the need to

renovate the tunnel, and request clarification, especially on how this might affect the
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

61

upcoming chinook and coho supplementation efforts (one of the NPT satellite release

sites will be above Selway Falls). Letters of support from agencies and tribes concerned

with this area should be provided.

2. Project ID: 28017

Monitoring the Selway Falls renovation project for passage of spring chinook salmon and

steelhead

Sponsor: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: The Selway River anadromous fish Tunnel is being considered for

renovation; To fine tune the fishway and manage it optimally, swimming behavior within

the fishway will be monitored using electromyogram (EMG) radio transmitters.

FY02 Request: $134,350

3 YR Estimate: $413,992

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. Provide clear evidence that this site is an impassable obstruction.

Radio-tagging of steelhead may help determine if the falls are a problem. Perhaps

tagging should be done with tunnel shut on and off. This project might provide objective

(apolitical) data to analyze the situation. On the other hand, agencies may view this study

as unnecessary because one suggests there is a problem and the other suggests there isn’t.

We request that PNNL solicit letters of support from the managing agencies.

Radio tagging work may provide some information, but will be confounded by the effect

of tagging, where fish may drop downstream afterwards. Knowledge of where in the

tunnel problems may be occurring may be improved with tagging work, but perhaps a

visual inspection inside the tunnel (or by camera) can provide adequate information.

Details of the tunnel design and current condition were lacking in this and the previous

proposal. Other options for fish passage may be possible.

Are these kind of efforts going to lead to behavioral models that can apply to different

situations? EMG work elsewhere (Klickitat and several others, including Fraser R.)

should now provide sufficient information to assess the degree of difficulty in

obstructions without repeating the tagging process every time. Provide a summary of the

EMG work in relation to the physical characteristics of this site (e.g., gradient, velocity,

height of barrier, flow during passage timing). Also, please clarify why this work would

take three years when the field studies should only require one season.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

62

Project ID: 28020

Nez Perce Tribe Harvest Monitoring Program

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resource Management

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: The objective is to develop and implement a comprehensive,

biologically sound monitoring program for the Nez Perce Tribe for the Columbia River

Basin and tributaries.

FY02 Request: $326,646

3 YR Estimate: $1,030,006

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response required. The data currently being collected may be inadequate to estimate

harvest with the precision required. This information is fundamental to stock assessment.

Adequate catch statistics are essential to stock assessment and management. Why, then,

is this project split out, from the hatchery M and E? In this proposal, no biological

information would be collected. Refine the proposal to correct this weakness. Questions

remain about the consistency, quality, and reliability of the data that are being collected

until more detail on the catch monitoring plan is provided.

Catch reporting should be a condition of licensing, but licensing is not an issue here since

this project deals with Treaty Reserved Fishing Rights. Perhaps a first step should be to

institute a process of licensing of the harvest, followed by design of a reporting template

(form). Please provide the suggested catch reporting form. The cost of licensing should

support the cost of the catch monitoring, and probably should be much lower than what is

reported here. Support may be justified for Task A: Consult Columbia River Intertribal

Fish Commission (CRITFC) Biometrician to establish and implement monitoring

strategies for the NPT for the Columbia River Basin and tributaries. We request a report

from the biometrician that recommends a catch monitoring strategy, to be followed by a

resubmitted proposal after peer review of the report. The proposal embodies the right

approach, provided appropriate statisticians are available to design the sampling.

Measuring catch per hour for the fishers contacted is fairly easy, but making valid

estimates of fishing effort (number of fishers and how many hours they fished in total)

will be very hard. An output of the project should be calculations of the degrees of

uncertainty of the estimates. Please indicate how this uncertainty will be calculated.

The terms, TAC and DRFM, found in the proposal are not defined.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

63

Project ID: 28021

Lower Clearwater Habitat Enhancement Project

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Acquire, protect, enhance and restore a total of 10,000 acres of

wildlife habitat on the Lower Clearwater River emphasizing habitats that will enhance

recovery opportunities for listed fish stocks and/or NPTH Hatchery restoration efforts.

FY02 Request: $1,428,000

3 YR Estimate: $10,026,000

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. The priority of sites to acquire or the process to do this was not

provided. This should fall out of a watershed assessment. The detailed watershed

assessment and prescription must be conducted, then provide a plan that addresses the

high priority habitat issues first. The latter must clearly indicate priorities for

rehabilitation work and outline land tracts desired, and why, i.e., justification is required

that is related to fish production benefits. The link of this project (see 199706000 and

199608600) with priorities within the Clearwater system is also required (indicate

priority within the subbasin, and expected benefits), along with the tie to a

comprehensive monitoring and evaluation program (see comments on 28004) to

document benefits.

The proposal, field tour, and presentation showed that project has great merit in terms of

habitat abuses that it will focus on remedying. The project must be based on a

comprehensive watershed assessment.

At least 4 literature sources shown in text (Bryson, Nowak, Statler, and Stovall, all these

on p 25) are not listed in the reference section.

The review group suggests that, future terrestrial monitoring efforts be made compatible

with one of the national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of the

National Resources Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve the

region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews in the

Columbia Plateau. Also, see the ISRP’s general comments on M&E in other NPT habitat

restoration projects and the ISRP’s programmatic comments on M&E at the beginning of

this report.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

64

Project ID: 28024

Dworshak Dam Impacts Assessment and Fisheries Investigation

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Evaluates the impacts of drawdowns and routine dam operations on

resident fish populations. Also, determines ways to minimize entrainment losses of fish

into Dworshak Dam.

FY02 Request: $468,801

3 YR Estimate: $1,085,801

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. The project history, review of past accomplishments, and (field visit)

presentation with visual aids helped greatly in assessing the project with regard to

objective 1, remedying kokanee entrainment. The strobe-light method is working at the

one turbine intake where testing is being done. It will now be tried also on “multiple”

turbine intakes, and if successful there, expanded to testing for coverage of reservoir

outlets. Outlet screening with strobe lights presents difficult problems. Dealing with

kokanee loss over the spillway, where greatest loss occurs in years of high flow, is

envisaged for further in the future and is briefly mentioned in the proposal. The longrange, stepwise plan seems reasonable. The project’s reports and prospects for one peerreviewed publication are shown. Progress toward reducing kokanee entrainment seems to

be moving very slowly; efforts should be taken to accelerate it. If the bulk of the fish loss

is over the spillway, why wait for future years to begin even elementary contemplation of

how to reduce that loss?

Objective 2 on bull trout entrainment is entirely new, and the proposal provided no clear

justification for initiating it. More background information, including a better review of

the pertinent literature would be needed. This objective would be more appropriate as a

separate project and indeed is proposed under Project 28022. Objective 2 should be

dropped from the proposal.

Objective 3, collection of basic data for analyzing productive capacity of the reservoir for

kokanee, seems reasonable in approach and methods.

What does "implement a prospective lake fertilization plan" (Task 3a, budget p. 10)

mean? What process is being followed to assess if and how fertilization might be

implemented?

The mention of "bioenergetics and or production models" is too vague. Proposers should

detail the status of that effort if continued funding for that task is anticipated.

It is unclear why US Army Corps of Engineers is not funding this, and what USACE has

funded in past and continues to fund.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

65

Project ID: 28025

Potlatch River Watershed Restoration

Sponsor: Latah Soil and Water Conservation District

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: To restore ecosystem functions, restore degraded habitat and protect

natural habitat within the Potlatch River watershed in Idaho thereby improving water

quality and quantity throughout the drainage.

FY02 Request: $505,125

3 YR Estimate: $1,302,625

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. The proposal was poorly written. The project might be fundable in

part to do a watershed assessment. The proposal is very unfocused, with very weak ties to

potential fish benefits. The proposal neither states that watershed assessment was done

nor shows that it will be done, though a fleeting reference to the term exists. Watershed

assessment should be done before the project, which should then derive from that

assessment. On p. 20, “comprehensive watershed planning” is one of the project goals

(the other two are doing BMPs and monitoring water quality and fish habitat); it is not

clear that watershed assessment is included. The proposal’s only mention of watershed

assessment is among the list (p. 23) of tie-ins with the Clearwater Basin Summary: the 3rd

item is to develop “watershed assessments at multiple scales.” It is implied several lines

previously that this is part of the proposal, but “watershed assessment” appears nowhere

in the work plan. In 2002, the project should be funded only for performance of the

watershed assessment needed for preparing a later proposal that deals with planning and

work.

The proposal contains much helpful background on the fish populations. Assessments of

instream habitat have also been done, but the results are not described. The proposal’s

deficiencies seem to indicate inadequate understanding of some basic aspects. A few

details: Table 2 displays channel stability, flow alteration, and habitat alteration in a

column headed “Pollutants” (which they are not), several literature sources referenced in

text are not in the reference list, the meaning of “(p IV-C-3)” on page 8 is unexplained,

and about half of Figure 7 is blacked out. More importantly, the discussion of “Limiting

Factors to Fish and Wildlife Species” is vague and confusing, especially in that (1) for

many of the factors mentioned, it is not said how they affect fish and wildlife, and (2)

sometimes human activities that indirectly affect fish and wildlife are misconstrued as

limiting factors; it is the specific conditions caused by those activities that should

identified as the limiting factors (and the human activities should be identified as causes

of those limiting factors). On page 19, “large stream size of the Clearwater River

mainstem” is shown as one of the four “principle [sic] factors” constraining steelhead. It

is not at all clear how large stream size would constrain the population.

Task 2.2 (p. 28), on modifying channelized stream implies a need for restoring “miles” of

habitat lost through channelization along railways, logging deck, and roads. It says sites

are being reviewed to “identify a channelized stream segment that can be modified in a

relatively low-cost fashion to return the stream to original channel.” This could
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

66

undoubtedly help restore habitat, but why just one piece of stream when apparently so

many parts of the stream are needy in this respect?

If an initial survey was done in 1995, then the proposal should contain data and

discussion of impact of the 1996 flood. Streamflow gaging stations should be established

throughout the system.

The review group suggests future terrestrial monitoring efforts be made compatible with

one of the national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of the National

Resources Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve the region

well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews in the Columbia

Plateau.

Project ID: 28029

Restore Lawyer Creek Habitat Targeting Steelhead and Chinook Salmon

Sponsor: Clearwater Economic Development Association

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Restore physical and biological process in seven miles of

anadromous and resident fish habitat in the Lawyer Creek watershed based on reach

prioritization determined from a watershed assessment.

FY02 Request: $342,750

3 YR Estimate: $1,895,311

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. This is a thorough, well-written proposal. It cites a watershed analysis,

although watershed analysis is still being done in the Lawyer Creek drainage (see Project

28004). This proposal refers to 28004, though not by number. Why does it not refer to the

Clearwater Focus Group?

This project, like some others of the sort, is not justified. It may be that the lower 7 miles

of Lawyer Creek is suboptimal habitat, and that the steelhead are declining, but these are

not sufficient reasons to spend this money here, especially when BPA funds are limited

and sooner or later someone will be held accountable for wise or unwise allocation of

resources. The real need is for an overall analysis of all the tributaries, then, based on

that, to do a triage, showing where to start on priority areas, and what areas to omit.

Regarding technical aspects, the proposal includes some sound approaches and up-to-date

techniques, e.g., reference to naturally stable reaches of the same and nearby creeks for

design of channel restoration, use of native plant materials collected locally, and liberal

installation of LWD with recognition that it is an interim measure meant to tide the

stream over until natural LWD replacement takes over. Some of the other techniques,

especially those involving “hard” architecture and/or forms that seldom or never occur in

nature, are of questionable value for fish and even could harm them. Questionable

devices (and/or the ways they will be used) include J-hook vanes, rock weirs, rock cross

vanes, and “upstream V-notch log weirs.” The latter term seems to confuse what might be

called an upstream log-V weir (a log weir in the plan-view shape of a V having its apex
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

67

upstream) with a so-called V-notch weir, which could be either a streamflow-gauging

device or a common habitat device: a straight, transverse log having a small notch to

create a concentrated waterfall. Although both kinds of habitat device are built in creeks,

neither mimics nature. Logs don’t butt up against each other in upstream V-form when

they fall naturally into streams, so the former device may do little for fish. Logs do lodge

horizontally across streams in nature, and these often benefit fish tremendously, but

nature puts no V-notch in them, and cutting a notch exposes more of the log’s top to air

and makes it rot faster. Maximal, cost-effective benefit for stream and riparian health and

for fish and wildlife will derive from concentrating on LWD placed in forms that tend to

occur naturally, and omitting most of the hard and artificial designs.

A major M&E program is planned in the project, and the proposal has much good

information on it. However, the plan calls for monitoring to start “following project

implementation,” which would appear to mean after construction. A control reach will be

included in the sampling, but just one control reach is not enough, and monitoring of

treatment and control reaches should begin several years before any construction or other

treatment starts. More detail on sampling design is needed in the proposal.

Reviewers did not see evidence of adequate knowledge regarding the measurement of

fish abundance. The proposal’s plan to conduct “two-pass depletion electrofishing” is

inadvisable. A depletion method of estimation using only two passes would give

unreliable results. At least three passes are needed in the depletion method. Alternatively,

a two-pass mark-and-recapture method could be used. What type(s) of electrofishing

gear will be used?

Project ID: 28031

Evaluation of Unclipped Hatchery Steelhead Released in the Clearwater and Salmon

River Basins

Sponsor: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Determine if outplanted unclipped steelhead: (a) return at higher

rates than fish from other artificial propagation programs, (b) spawn where intended, and

(c) increase the natural juvenile population.

FY02 Request: $484,993

3 YR Estimate: $1,038,029

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. The reviewers are not convinced that this approach will address the

question. Confounding of supplementation by harvest is involved. A stock assessment

structured with a decision analysis framework would indicate that when a population is

operating below recruitment replacement, harvest should be halted, as should all other

sources of mortality, where possible. A short-term supplementation exercise might then

be considered on an experimental basis as a last-ditch attempt to maintain the remnants of

the wild population, in hopes that conditions for survival in the ocean improve, or that

other means to offset the reduced productivity can be quickly implemented. The sponsor

would like to quantify the effect of harvested, clipped steelhead by releasing unclipped
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

68

hatchery fish, but this project is unlikely to do so, and will confound other analyses. See

comments on 28032 and 199706000 (and throughout) related to stock assessment needs.

Reviewers are concerned that deleterious impacts to wild steelhead might occur from the

700,000 unclipped hatchery fish released in the year 2000, and any subsequent releases.

Overall the proposed evaluation is supported as high priority.

Additional information is requested regarding Objective 3 (determining if juvenile

population densities change). What would be the ability of the work described to detect

change? Additional details better describing possible outcomes and their interpretation

are needed.

Project ID: 28032

ASSESSMENT OF A-RUN STEELHEAD POPULATIONS IN THE CLEARWATER

RIVER BASIN

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: An assessment of the current status and performance of the A-run

steelhead population in the Clearwater Subbasin (i.e., population abundance,

productivity, spatial structure, and diversity).

FY02 Request: $686,800

3 YR Estimate: $1,723,690

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. The reviewers seriously question whether much of this project is

needed, especially for the intended 5-10 years. Beyond Objective 2, monitoring spatial

structure and genetic diversity, the rest is questionable because it is redundant with NPT

proposals for steelhead assessment and habitat work (inadequate planning) in Lapwai,

Big & Little Canyon creeks, and because the millions being spent to restore habitat in

those lower Clearwater tributaries seem to be producing few results. The need is for

comprehensive evaluation of current habitat conditions (especially temperature) through

all the tributaries used by A-run fish, and only then an evaluation of what gains are

possible and where best to begin (as is being done by the Yakama Nation in the Yakima

basin, with EDT).

The work on genetic structuring (microsatelite analysis) should be omitted. Probably

enough has already been done. And what if the project were to find a difference? How

would that information be applied? At least one reviewer was unconvinced that A run and

B run are distinct; the apparent distinction may only be a function of ocean growth and

survival. Why wouldn’t there have been gene flow in the past? Likewise, regarding

straying rate, the radio tagging work should be saved for later, and investigators should

get on with the task of stock assessment and stock status and towards developing an

evaluation program. What about resident rainbow trout (predominantly males?)?

More precise and meaningful usage of the carrying capacity concept is needed. The

proposal does little to quantitatively identify limits to production. It could be used to
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

69

justify a hatchery approach (see comments on 28031), but hatchery fish may be even less

unlikely than wild fish to survive in these streams (perhaps due to temperature

limitation), unless special, intensive selection of broodstock were done, or major habitat

improvements were to unfold rapidly.

This is a purportedly required study, touted among other proposals as their monitoring

and evaluation component. As it stands, it will not provide the M&E values expected.

To evaluate habitat improvement or hatchery effectiveness, monitoring in more than one

tributary would be required, and with adequate assignment of treatment and control

streams. At best, it might provide some much needed stock status information.

There was no mention of altered ocean conditions in the proposal as the leading cause for

the sudden, dramatic, and persistent decline in returns through the 1990s, a pattern that

was not consistent with the timing of what was listed as the potential causes (dam

operation, habitat degradation, overfishing).

The spawner-recruit relationship proposed for examination in the project has been

attempted by other steelhead investigators. The authors need to examine those works

carefully. The life stages should be split into two stanzas, the density-dependent

freshwater phase (spawner to smolt) and the marine phase (smolt to adult). Freshwater

production (Ricker a) can be examined in terms of smolts per spawner as a function of

the number of spawners.

Variability in parr sampling efficiencies and in parr densities, particularly at low

escapement levels and with variable distribution of redds, will frustrate attempts at

comparison and should be discarded in favor of comparative snorkel surveys of adult

abundance in key index monitoring sites within the study stream (i.e., fish fence present)

and among others. Alternatively, and preferably, the comparison among other streams

should be based on smolt yield in treated and untreated watersheds.

For adult enumeration, consider electronic (Logie) counters that remain functional at high

flows. These require a civil structure or crump weir, or preferably, a purpose-built

structure. Adult sampling for biological data can still be incorporated in the design; the

population need only be sub-sampled to determine age structure, etc.

For smolt estimation, a full-counting structure with random sampling is best, but may not

be possible due to high flows. Two RSTs are required (or two locations: one for

marking, the other for recapture, each with as many RSTs as necessary to obtain an

adequate recapture rate). See Dempson and Stansbury (1991).
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

70

Project ID: 28033

Monitoring and evaluating coho salmon reintroduction in the Clearwater River Basin

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe, Department of Fisheries Resources Management

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Monitor and evaluate the results of the reintroduction of coho salmon

to the Clearwater River Subbasin so that operations can be adaptively managed to

optimize hatchery and natural production, sustain harvest and minimize ecological

impacts.

FY02 Request: $676,752

3 YR Estimate: $1,882,256

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. This large proposal is very well written.

Several items of concern remain:

1. What are the drawbacks of releasing unclipped fish to assess harvest (p 33)?

2. Objective 3 includes assessment of possible introgression with chinook (to what

extent does this occur?) but does not seem to address how that might be done (p

42),

3. Some chinook work is proposed (p 42 – 46) that seems out of place or is a

typographical error.

4. The issue of possible deleterious effects on chinook and steelhead (p 47) is only

weakly addressed.

5. This project does nothing to address the reasons for the coho decline.

Project ID: 28041

Dworshak Zooplankton Entrainment

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Apply hydroacoustic technology to monitor zooplankton density and

depth distribution at the Dworshak Dam forebay and apply this information to outlet

selector gate operation to minimize or avoid zooplankton entrainment.

FY02 Request: $434,463

3 YR Estimate: $1,182,926

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Do not fund; a response is not warranted. This endeavor needs much more pre-proposal

background research of literature and better interaction with those doing other related

Dworshak work. That research might well indicate futility of trying to regulate Dworshak

Reservoir withdrawals to significantly reduce entrainment of zooplankton. The proposal

fails to indicate any review of basic scientific studies about diel vertical migration of

zooplankton; much review of such literature, which is extensive, would be warranted.

Several local reports concerning studies on Dworshak reservoir itself were referenced in

the proposal text, but none of them was listed in the proposal’s reference section (which

was empty). More basic literature might reveal that diel zooplankton migration is

commonly so rapid and extends so far vertically as to require hourly or more frequent

change in draw-off level to avoid their entrainment. This might be difficult even if the

dam’s outlet structures had been built for draw-off at many elevational increments over
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

71

the depth of water that zooplankton traverse—and even if dominant competing

requirements for water of special temperature (necessitating draw at certain levels) did

not exist. The Dworshak rule curve is already extremely complex. Questioning of the

presenters indicated that structural and prior-need constraints would likely prevent the

draw-off-level flexibility needed to cope with diel migration of zooplankton. If the

prospects for managing the draw-off for the intended purpose are not good, studying the

zooplankton as outlined would have no value. Sponsor should more thoroughly research

zooplankton ecology, and if reasonable prospect of successful management is then seen,

submit a revised proposal in a future year.

Project ID: 28042

Timing and location of spawning by pure and introgressed cutthroat trout in the North

Fork Clearwater River

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: The goal of this project is to precisely identify spawning areas and

accurately determine the timing of spawning for pure and introgressed westslope

cutthroat trout using state-of-the-art radio telemetry systems.

FY02 Request: $311,878

3 YR Estimate: $937,698

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Do not fund; a response is not warranted. The project emphasizes performance of a

technique (EMG radiotelemetry) but lacks adequate investigational design and

management ties. In its current form the work would neither answer the introgression

question nor aid in reducing the impacts of non-native salmonids. Project PI’s are very

active researchers and leaders in EMG telemetry, but the proposal is lacking in

population and genetic considerations that form the heart of the project and the questions

it is attempting to address.

Previous studies have established that hybridization between westslope cutthroat trout

(WCT) and introduced rainbow trout (RBT) is widespread in the drainage, and that some

pure WCT still exist there. Therefore, WCT are obviously spawning with RBT, and three

related types of fish must be present: pure WCT, pure RBT, and hybrids (perhaps also

others, as mentioned below). The sponsor proposes to radiotelemetrically track WCT and

hybrids to find out where and when they spawn “since the mechanisms that limit the

potential for hybridization between cutthroat trout and rainbow trout include aggressive

spawning behavior and spatial separation between spawning sites.” No clear justification

emerges from that statement. It is not stated why only WCT and hybrids—and not also

RBT, the source of the hybridization—would be tracked. Most importantly, it is not

stated how the study’s results could be applied, i.e., what management the hoped-for

findings could lead to that might remedy the hybridization threat to pure WCT

populations.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

72

Project ID: 28043

Crooked River Ecosystem Assessment at the Watershed Scale

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries/Watershed

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Assess watershed conditions and develop and prioritize watershed

restoration activities

FY02 Request: $131,213

3 YR Estimate: $601,213

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. The proposal makes a logical case for the need for the EAWS

assessment of the Crooked River and for the development of criteria to prioritize

watershed restoration alternatives. Once a final set of implementation actions is

identified, and before the time and expense of the NEPA preparation occurs, the proposed

implementation plan should be reviewed by an independent scientific group.

Dredge mining legacy identified as one of the major limiting factors in the Crooked River

for summer/spring chinook and steelhead. Bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout occur

in the river’s upper reaches. Dredge legacy is all in the lower section (a little in the

middle section). How much consideration has been given to rehabilitating the dredge

areas, like the ISRP observed in Granite Creek in the North Fork John Day River?

Large-scale and expensive restoration efforts in these highly degraded systems are

probably generally unwarranted, unless specific historical and biological information can

be used to justify the action in a specific location through a predicted strong positive

response from the target salmonid species.

The EAWS assessment and the prioritization criteria should include allow an assessment

of how critical reclamation of the dredged areas are to steelhead and chinook production

in the Crooked River system. In turn, this will provide direction for the suite of proposed

future activities and give insight into the scale and expense of restoration alternative in

the Crooked River system.

The review group suggests that future terrestrial monitoring efforts be made compatible

with one of the national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of the

National Resources Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve the

region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews in the

Columbia Plateau.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

73

Project ID: 28045

Evaluating stream habitat using the Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries/Watershed Watershed

Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries and Watershed

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: WME will implement habitat surveys and fish snorkel stations in

order to characterize quantity and quality of available spawning and rearing habitat and

will evaluate stream response to watershed restoration and/or management activity.

FY02 Request: $381,108

3 YR Estimate: $1,190,708

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. The Watershed Monitoring and Evaluation Plan would be

implemented by the Fisheries/Watershed Department to evaluate habitat quality and

water quality in all streams throughout the Mountain Snake Province where the Nez

Perce Tribe has ongoing or proposed watershed restoration projects. Department staff

would also monitor "fish metrics" (species, age class, and size range) in the lowest reach

of each monitored stream.

The proposal states that "this extensive data collection effort would support the effort to

validate the Ecological Diagnosis Treatment model (EDT)" and "much of the subbasin

scale restoration recommendations developed by the FWP will be based on the EDT

model". However reviewers did not see further mention of how that might occur, or of

the staff that would be involved, in this or any other proposal currently being reviewed in

the Province.

Most of the reviewers have been involved in the past in efforts similar to that proposed

(the US Forest Service GAWS program, for example) where a set of standardized habitat

attributes was monitored over large spatial and temporal scales in an attempt, in part, to

use those attributes in lieu of, or as a surrogate for, fish abundance data. Those programs

quietly terminated after several years, leaving behind mountains of data but little else to

remember them by. In the view of the panel, there is a strong likelihood that the

proposed project would have a similar fate.

Reviewers have been involved in some very fruitful habitat-based study, such as the

Habitat Quality Index in Wyoming, where combinations of physical/chemical stream

attributes were developed to predict trout abundance. However that work was successful

because it focused on establishing which biological factors were indeed determinants of

fish abundance in that environment.

Reviewers are concerned by the perceived amount of separation here between habitat

restoration staff and the fish monitoring staff to which they are "tiered." Although

responsibility for evaluation should lie outside the on-ground habitat projects, the skill of

habitat restoration personnel depends on their having strong working knowledge of what

the fish require. They must continually increase that knowledge by being personally

involved, seeing what aspects of habitat management worked and what did not. Please

address reviewers’ concern that this plan would widen, not narrow, the knowledge gap by
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

74

failing to improve the staff’s understanding of limiting factors. Also, are not fish the

currency of success, especially where the habitat is largely underseeded?

Project ID: 28046

Impacts of Salmon Carcasses on Chinook Salmon and Watershed Restoration in

Subbasins of the Clearwater River

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries and Watershed

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: We propose to study critical first steps in evaluating the effects of

MDN on inland watersheds in the Clearwater River Basin where recent subbasin

summaries have determined that salmon numbers are low and nutrient limitation exists.

FY02 Request: $179,002

3 YR Estimate: $756,502

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. The Proposal described its relationship to projects like this in the

innovative solicitation, but does this duplicate those efforts?

The study design needs to be defined and reviewed prior to re-submission. A researchlevel proposal on the role of marine-derived nutrients within the Clearwater sub-basin is

described. The key personnel have no experience in this field or in stream trophic

dynamics, according to their listed qualifications, but the presentation was reasonable

within a rapidly emerging field of study. They would do well to partner with one of the

many groups that are now providing research on salmon carcasses, including the BPAfunded projects which they list – they must provide supporting documentation. Nutrient

limitations and excesses exist within the sub-basin, but these were not listed – a review of

this data is required before proceeding. In addition, they need to consider the use of

salmon carcasses placed in the fall and the difficulty in controlling nutrient levels with

that approach versus the addition of inorganic N and P strategically placed in the spring

and summer growing season, at pre-described target levels based on flow, stream size,

and background levels. Research is now underway to compare these approaches

(carcasses versus nutrient pellets, and a new approach using carcass analogs is in

development)– perhaps they should await these results. In British Columbia, the addition

of inorganic nutrients is now a standard rehabilitation tool in coastal streams, and Interior

resident trout streams (and lakes) but untested in the Interior anadromous areas.

Some indication of the availability of carcasses for this study is required. Apparently, in

past years hatchery returns were insufficient to meet brood stock needs, let alone harvest

and escapement requirements, as well as carcasses for streams (although some spent

broodstock carcasses may be available, these may be questionably enough for the

watershed or perhaps even experimentation).

The proponents need to consider the key response variable, which is smolt yield. All of

the other detailed analysis are redundant in an implementation project as this should be;

research is in process or completed by research groups elsewhere. Of interest are the instream responses by fish in this area of the Columbia R. (trend monitoring of fish size,

growth, and number) and the recruitment response. The latter is measured as the natural
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

75

logarithm of the number of smolts produced per spawner as a function of the number of

spawners, in treatment and control streams.

The stable isotope work may provide interesting research information, but is superfluous

to work already in progress and not required in an implementation project. Also

excessive even at the level of site monitoring for response trends is the periphyton and

invertebrate monitoring, and even that is not as important to this study as the water

quality monitoring. Before and after plus seasonal (spring summer and fall) monitoring

of periphyton and macroinvertebrates as proposed will provide little additional

information at high cost. Some monitoring of trends in periphyton and invertebrates may

be useful to monitor at least visually during the experiment. All of the changes at these

lower trophic levels will be reflected in the fish response, if any. Likewise, the extensive

use of GIS seems overkill, and not subject to rigorous statistical evaluation (no design

was provided), although a map-based description of nutrient levels in streams in general

may be useful. A well-designed nutrient experiment will show no change in water

quality since the nutrients are taken up immediately and transferred through the aquatic

trophic levels to fish.

Respond with a new design, please, indicating whether a carcass approach (if available)

or inorganic nutrient approach will be considered, and indicate how and where it will be

applied and tested. Please base the design on information on nutrient levels in streams of

this area, where production is not limited by other major factors (i.e., indicate that food

supply is limiting growth and production). A mesocosm approach in the initial stages

may be informative, followed by pilot scale studies in smaller tributaries. Show the

connection to other related studies in the Columbia, and include letters of support.

Project ID: 28047

Restore and Protect Red River Watershed

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries Watershed

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Restore and protect the Red River Watershed for the benefit of both

resident and anadromous fish using an overall watershed approach. Restoration and

protection efforts will be done cooperatively with the Nez Perce National Forest.

FY02 Request: $199,567

3 YR Estimate: $770,962

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. This is a proposal to conduct watershed analysis (actually EAWS),

then plan remedies for problems revealed by the watershed assessment. Judging by the

scheduled budget, most of the watershed assessment and planning will take place in

2002, 2003, and 2004. The construction/treatment phase is to begin in 2004 and last at

least through 2006. M&E is proposed for 2005 and 2006 (however, monitoring should

start before construction, so as to enable comparison of pre- and post-project conditions).

It would be better to complete the watershed assessment and planning under this

proposal— watershed assessment in 2002, prescription of remedies in 2003, project

planning and reporting in 2004, omit construction/treatment for the time being, and then

come back in the next cycle (2005-2007) with a new proposal for the
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

76

construction/treatment phase, based on what was found out during in the 2002-2004

cycle. Then the proposal for construction/treatment can show proper substance and detail.

It looks as if the watershed assessment is planned for a period of 2 or 3 years, but it

would be better to get it done in 2002. If agency personnel are not available to complete

the watershed assessment in one year, it perhaps should be contracted out.

Parts of the proposal are difficult to read and interpret. Some problems are overly vague

statements; an almost useless map (Fig. 1) that has no scale, no labels, no legend, no

indication of compass direction—and no indication even of where the main channel is or

where its mouth is; and undefined acronyms and abbreviations (e.g., RPA, BOR, ESU,

TMDL, ICBEMP, ERU, ARPA, NAGPRA). Most readers will be unfamiliar with some

of these terms. All abbreviations should be defined at first use in the text—as has been

done for many others.

General comment for NPT habitat projects: Although M and E linkages (“tiers”) are

provided in the set of NPT habitat proposals, this proposal and the set of NPT habitat

proposals need to demonstrate closer ties to the NPT and other fish monitoring projects in

the watershed and province (e.g. NPT projects 1988335003, 199703000, IDFG project

199107300, and the ISS studies). In the long term, fish-monitoring data will be critical in

determining the efficacy of the restoration activities. The response needs to describe

clear coordination between this proposal, proposal 28045, and the NPT fisheries and

other entities’ monitoring programs; and demonstrate how data and analysis will be

shared between the projects. In addition, see the ISRP's comments on 28045 and

programmatic comments on M&E at the beginning of this report. The NPT may want to

submit one coordinated response for its numerous habitat projects.

Project ID: 28048

Protect and Restore Crooked Fork Creek to Colt Killed Analysis Area

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries and Watershed

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: This project will protect, restore, and return critical spawning and

rearing habitat using a holistic approach beginning with a comprehensive watershed

assessment, which will target restoration projects. Projects coordinated with USFS and

PCTC.

FY02 Request: $423,365

3 YR Estimate: $1,557,065

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. This clearly presented proposal to protect and restore fish habitat in a

system of streams is thorough, detailed, and well supported by references. The scheme of

tasks, however, needs much reorganization. Most of the tasks shown under the

Construction & Implementation Phase really belong in the Planning & Design Phase, and

a few of them in the M&E Phase. The Construction & Implementation Phase should

include only tasks in which something is built or in which treatments are done. All the

tasks look necessary, and it should be easy to regroup them more logically in the revised

proposal.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

77

Formal watershed analysis apparently is not finished (USFS started it for Crooked Fork

to Brushy Fork drainages; from presentation it sounded about 1/3 complete), and EAWS

is proposed within the project, but a wealth of previous analyses of habitat problems

(including road and culvert alteration needs) serves as a sound basis for the proposal.

Thus, although results from the EAWS should be the basis for the proposal, approving

the project as proposed appears to be much more justified than in some other projects

where watershed analysis has not yet been done.

General comment for NPT habitat projects: Although M and E linkages (“tiers”) are

provided in the set of NPT habitat proposals, this proposal and the set of NPT habitat

proposals need to demonstrate closer ties to the NPT and other fish monitoring projects in

the watershed and province (e.g. NPT projects 1988335003, 199703000, IDFG project

199107300, and the ISS studies). In the long term, fish-monitoring data will be critical in

determining the efficacy of the restoration activities. The response needs to describe

clear coordination between this proposal, proposal 28045, and the NPT fisheries and

other entities’ monitoring programs; and demonstrate how data and analysis will be

shared between the projects. In addition, see the ISRP's comments on 28045 and

programmatic comments on M&E at the beginning of this report. The NPT may want to

submit one coordinated response for its numerous habitat projects.

The review group also suggests that future terrestrial monitoring efforts be made

compatible with one of the national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of

the National Resources Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve

the region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews in the

Columbia Plateau.

Project ID: 28059

Restoring anadromous fish habitat in the Lapwai Creek watershed.

Sponsor: Nez Perce Soil and Water Conservation District

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: The project will implement BMPs on agricultural lands to reduce

sediment, nutrients, and stream temperature. In addition, the project will improve low

summer flows by installing BMPs for water retention in the uplands.

FY02 Request: $372,060

3 YR Estimate: $961,116

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. A thorough but lengthy proposal was presented, and the presentation

was in conjunction with 199901700. The problem of temperatures, flows, and

sedimentation was well defined, and several solutions were recommended, including

BMPs, culvert surveys (why was this not part of the watershed assessment?), bridge

repair, fencing, and the work includes an impressive component of public education

(meetings, tours, newsletters). Questions at the presentation revealed that a thorough

watershed assessment within established protocols has not been completed. This must be

a priority before progressing further. See M&E comments under 28004 (Lawyer Creek)
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

78

which also apply here. In addition, indicate in the response the extent of BMPs

implementation planned and completed, and what percentage of the required work this

represents, particularly in relation to reductions in negative attributes that will benefit

fish. Then indicate how this will be monitored and evaluated, and the level of monitoring

(i.e., as positive trends in physical and biological variables, or through more detailed

effectiveness evaluation in a paired design). See 199706000 and 199608600.

Coordination among participants appeared high, a function of the level of motivation

evident from the proposal, the tour, and the presentation. The work and its review could

benefit from a clearer statement of priorities and a list of tasks by order of importance and

timing of implementation.

The review group also suggests that future terrestrial monitoring efforts be made

compatible with one of the national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of

the National Resources Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve

the region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews in the

Columbia Plateau.

Project ID: 28060

Assess Stream Quality for Salmonid Recovery in the Lower Clearwater Subbasin

Sponsor: Nez Perce Soil and Water Conservation District

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Complete a stream health assessment in order to identify priority

areas for fish habitat restoration.

FY02 Request: $95,148

3 YR Estimate: $145,648

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. Project goal is to complete a stream health assessment in order to

identify priority areas for fish habitat restoration using the SVAP protocol – stream visual

assessment protocol (NRCS) – in six very small Clearwater mainstem tributaries. The

Clearwater Watershed Assessment does not get to the needed resolution on these small

streams. An earlier demonstration project in Hatwai Creek has proven to be very

effective in engaging local landowners. The initially reluctantly participating landowner

in Hatwai Creek realized economic gains to his operation (as well as the predicted

biological gains) became one of the project’s greatest advocates.

A response is needed to provide additional information on the SVAP method of the

NRCS. Additionally, more discussion of how the assessment information will be used to

identify prioritized restoration alternatives.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

79

Project ID: 198335000

Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Complete construction and begin operation of Nez Perce Tribal

Hatchery supplementation program to assist in the recovery and restoration of non-listed

spring chinook and ESA listed Snake River fall chinook in the Clearwater Basin.

FY02 Request: $3,485,000

3 YR Estimate: $10,245,000

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. The ISRP remains concerned about and skeptical of this project.

Reviewers did not feel that the ISRP’s previous questions were adequately addressed in

the proposal, specifically, (1) “This project focuses on a largely untested concept on too

large a scale”, and (2) “the conditions primarily responsible for limiting the resource (the

salmon population in this case) be identified, and (3) that it be demonstrated that the

proposed project will remove those limiting conditions or circumvent them”.

The NPTH has two phases of construction management. These phases are the result of

issues arising during the Final Design process. During that process, the NPPC approved

construction of a smaller scale, more temporary NPTH program, based on concerns by

the ISRP in their FY2000 review. Implementation of the full-scale production program

(Phase Two) will be dependent on M&E results from the first phase of the program.

Initial production numbers were decreased and facility infrastructure was designed to

meet a reduced cost. It is important that the NPTH production remain at the reduced

Phase I level throughout this initial review and evaluation period.

The ISRP remains concerned that planning for the hatchery and its M&E include all

possible management and response alternatives including termination of the program due

to either success or failure in achieving program objectives. A noted in FY00 review, the

ISRP recommends that a full and consistent decision tree be developed as the program

moves forward. The tree should specify all triggers, including intermediate levels and

timelines that if not achieved would forestall Phase 2 construction, or even lead to

termination of the program itself. The history of fisheries management in the Columbia

River Basin is replete with projects that failed to achieve their objectives in part or even

completely. Thus, in spite of the need for this project, and the enthusiasm of its

implementers, it would seem prudent to plan for all possible outcomes.

Another lingering concern is that the project focuses on a largely untested concept on too

large a scale. We note that Phase I production objectives have been scaled down in

response to this concern from the ISRP. Over the last decade, the Basin has entered into

3 substantial programs that were intended to serve as experimental tests of

supplementation (NEOH, Idaho, and Yakima projects); but have not yet had time to yield

reliable findings. The scientific foundation for the NPT large-scale project has therefore,

not been provided. The proposed activities should more directly address or at least

circumvent limiting factors to salmon production.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

80

Many of the asserted “innovative” approaches (i.e., NATUREs concept) are presently

supported by a small literature base that is limited in both the scale of studies and by the

subsequent inferences to overall hatchery practices. In general, the approaches have not

been proven to yield greater survival to adulthood of released fish than standard practice.

Project advocates also claim that they will not impact populations in nature by keeping

within natural “carrying capacities.” Carrying capacity has proven difficult to measure

and altering density at any population level with propagated fish will no doubt influence

the population in nature. On the positive side, it appears the sponsors have undertaken

surveys to determine carrying capacity and appear to be undertaking habitat improvement

projects to absorb the hatchery-produced fish.

Project ID: 198335003

Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Monitor and evaluate results of the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery so that

operations can be adaptively managed to optimize hatchery and natural production,

sustain harvest, and minimize ecological impacts.

FY02 Request: $1,884,430

3 YR Estimate: $6,087,194

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. The ISRP remains concerned that planning for the hatchery and its

M&E include all possible management and response alternatives including termination of

the program due to either success or failure in achieving program objectives. A noted in

FY00 review, the ISRP recommends that a full and consistent decision tree be developed

as the program moves forward. The tree should specify all triggers, including

intermediate levels and timelines that if not achieved would forestall Phase 2

construction, or even lead to termination of the program itself. The history of fisheries

management in the Columbia River Basin is replete with projects that failed to achieve

their objectives in part or even completely. Thus, in spite of the need for this project, and

the enthusiasm of its implementers, it would seem prudent to plan for all possible

outcomes.

Does the experimental design for evaluating supplementation at the NPTH have

wild/wild control streams, and a hatchery/hatchery line? Is sample design randomized or

do they use index sites based on observed presence?
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

81

Project ID: 198740700

Dworshak Integrated Rule Curves/M&E

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Refine the Dworshak Rule Curve Evaluation Model, use the model

as a tool to help identify appropriate integrated operation (Integrated Rule Curve), and

develop a comprehensive long-term monitoring and evaluation plan for Dworshak

Reservoir.

FY02 Request: $201,291

3 YR Estimate: $541,291

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Do not fund; no response is called for. The reviewers concerns are similar to those

expressed in the FY2000 review. In addition, evidence was presented that reservoir

operation is driven by the BiOp and by the power system emergency, rather than being

regulated by a rule curve. It will not be useful to undertake the proposed efforts (which

were not clearly expressed) to adjust a process that is already burdened by too many

conflicting influences. No significant improvement is likely.

Project ID: 199303501

Enhance Fish, Riparian, and Wildlife Habitat within the Red River Watershed

Sponsor: Idaho County Soil and Water Conservation District

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Restore physical and biological processes to create a self-sustaining

river/meadow ecosystem using a holistic approach and adaptive management principles

to enhance fish, riparian, and wildlife habitat and water quality within the Red River

watershed.

FY02 Request: $561,000

3 YR Estimate: $1,666,000

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. This project performs three managements: relocating artificially

straightened (ditched) parts of a creek into previous natural meanders, planting riparian

vegetation, and excluding domestic livestock from stream banks. In addition, it has large

research and communication/education components. The need for the three elementary

managements is obvious and well understood in salmonid habitat restoration. They have

been practiced and evaluated elsewhere for years (which the proposal does not recognize

and discuss). Most of the project’s research and communication effort is warranted. The

research should be reduced to basic M&E, and biological M&E deficiencies should be

corrected. The project’s essential, restorative results could be achieved for much less

money.

Habitat projects under the Fish and Wildlife Program must be based on watershed

assessment. The proposal refers to certain assessments to support need for the project,

e.g., “a landscape scale assessment (USDA Forest Service, 1998).” However, the project

has gone on for some 8 years without the requisite watershed assessment, which is not

planned for completion until 2003 (“An Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale, p.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

82

10). The EAWS should be done sooner, and the project should be funded only for the

EAWS until that component is finished.

The project is vastly overdone and expensive, and lacks appropriate focus on biological

aspects. Obviously, a great deal of thought and effort regarding physical aspects have

gone into the physical and “communication” aspects thus far, and into the 2002 proposal

and supplementary materials. The critical assumptions listed on p. 27 are particularly

good (and they could be expanded to deal more directly with ecological processes),

however, it is evident in the project’s objectives, tasks, and methods that most of the

critical assumptions will not be inadequately investigated.

The project’s research is developing information that is interesting in its own right and

may represent a contribution to the field of stream morphology, but its applicability to

fish and wildlife restoration is unclear. The physical aspects, though necessary in

principle, are overdone. The potential of such elaborate measurements for solving

Columbia/Snake River fishery and wildlife problems is not evident; physical study

should be scaled down. The project’s communication/education component is also out of

proportion to the need; major public education seems unwarranted because the study area

is remote and the meadow reach under study does not represent the steeper types of

stream that prevail in the drainage basin. Reporting of results via normal agency and

professional-journal channels would fill the communications need.

The project is particularly lacking in biological concept, planning, direction,

participation, and analysis. These shortcomings are especially notable in view of the

project title’s key words: “Enhance Fish, Riparian, and Wildlife Habitat,” which imply

biological emphasis. The project goal is described as restoring “natural physical and

biological processes,” but, except for revegetation, the processes discussed in the

proposal are almost solely physical. Also, little in the way of biological process (e.g.,

survival, growth, reproduction, behavior) exists in the M&E plan. The project needs

guidance from ecologists.

Meaning of the elaborate physical measurements to fish and wildlife habitat is mentioned

only very generally in the proposal and is hardly referenced; the only primary (non-gray)

source on fish or wildlife habitat is Bjornn & Reiser (1991), and it is referenced only with

respect to gravel size for spawning chinook salmon. In other words, the project’s

connections with ecology of fish and other animals are not truly described. No primary

source on ecology is referenced in the proposal’s section on technical and scientific

background (and indeed even none on physical processes in streams). What kinds of

habitat are to be restored? How much of each type is expected to result? How do fish and

wildlife of various kinds use the types of habitat that will be created? What quantitative

gain in fish and wildlife production can be expected to result, and via what processes?

Before work is extended to private land up- or downstream from the present project area,

the project cost per unit of stream length should be greatly reduced. Restoring the stream

to its pre-channelization course (a natural condition to which wild fish are adapted) is

undoubtedly beneficial, but the cost of doing it should be nowhere near that of the present
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

83

project. The $3,065,909 cost to date for the 2.55-mile post-restoration channel is $1.2

million per mile (it would be $3.19 million per mile for the 0.96 mile of channel gained,

but benefit derives also to the rest of the study area). By any measure, the per-mile cost

has been exorbitant, especially for this small stream.

How representative of important problems in the drainage basin is the project area? The

proposal does not establish this.

The project devised a large, intricate, portable weir system “to facilitate transfer of river

flow from existing channel alignment into the newly constructed alignment” (p. 39). The

proposal states that the “portable weirs are extremely effective at allowing flow transfer

to take place with minimal turbidity discharge,” and that they “also improve construction

efficiency by allowing work such as backfilling and bank shaping to continue behind the

weirs without risk of erosion or deposition.” However, no data are provided to support

the implication that the weirs reduce downstream sedimentation to an extent that is

biologically significant. Reviewers viewed photos of the weirs during the site visit, noted

that the devices seem a major expense, and question whether building and operating these

devices is cost effective from the standpoint of the fishery resource.

The M&E design appears to depend mainly on detecting trends and does not seem to

include adequate experimental control in terms of sampling in similar but untreated

reaches of stream. Some of the monitoring for trends has been started after the treatments

were done, thus missing pre-treatment data. The section on macroinvertebrate monitoring

(p. 36) indicates that one “control reach is included to evaluate natural variability.” It is

questionable whether one is enough. That section also indicates that macroinvertebrate

sampling of riffles will be done in 2001 for the first time; that does not seem timely. No

control reaches are mentioned in connection with measurement of fish population

response. The proposed measurement of fish habitat response (p. 35) is inadequate. For

example, important variables such as features that provide hiding cover are missing from

the plan (applicant should consult modern salmonid habitat studies), controls are not

included, and the schedule of monitoring for trend seems to have been delayed until after

treatment began. Many of these shortcomings apply also to M&E for wildlife.

Furthermore, the only wildlife populations being monitored are birds.

The review group suggests that future terrestrial monitoring efforts be made compatible

with one of the national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of the

National Resources Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve the

region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews in the

Columbia Plateau.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

84

Project ID: 199501300

Resident Fish Substitution Program

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Increase fish harvest opportunities to partially mitigate for

anadromous fisheries losses resulting from the "permanent" migration blockage posed by

Dworshak Dam on the North Fork Clearwater River.

FY02 Request: $243,355

3 YR Estimate: $1,072,186

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. This project needs serious remedial effort and as proposed is not

scientifically sound. The project’s history of mismanagement persists. Little use is made

of the readily available scientific knowledge that could improve project results. Technical

soundness and fiscal accountability are at issue. The program’s proposals have been of

unacceptable quality year after year. The reviewers do not question the need for a fish

substitution program; their criticisms involve the way it is being conducted and the

ongoing waste of resources.

The proposal is poorly prepared and deficient in content. The “abstract” contains material

not elaborated in the body of the proposal. No primary source on limnology is referenced,

although knowledge of that subject is sorely needed to conduct the project.

In Sect. 4, the P&D budget, 4 ongoing tasks (1a, 1b, 1c, and 2a) are shown with zero cost

(and no matching funds shown elsewhere). In Sect. 5, the Construction/Implementation

budget, Task 1a also has zero cost. Zero cost for scheduled activities is incongruous and

must be corrected or somehow explained. In Sect. 7, M&E budget, Tasks 1a and 1b

coincide with Section 4’s Tasks 1a and 1c, respectively. If part of each is actually

intended for the P&D phase, then the budget should be divided accordingly.

Sect. 9, item f, Proposal objectives, tasks and methods, is completely inadequate. It

merely states an overall objective. The scheme of objectives and tasks shown in the

budget sections is not set forth in this item, and no method is shown whatsoever. What

are the rationale, sampling design, and technique for each of the budgeted tasks that

involve monitoring and/or evaluation of conditions or results? Specifically,

- In Task 1a (identical in Sect. 4 and 7), “Monitor temperature, oxygen, specific

conductivity, pH, nitrogen loading, alkalinity, and depth to evaluate water quality and

habitat at new fisheries,” does this mean in new ponds or in the water supplies

intended for new ponds or both? What is the rationale for measuring each of these

variables (of what use will the data from each likely be—and why not measures of

phosphorus loading, as well)? What is the sampling design for each? What

technique(s) will be used to measure each? What were the results from previous

years?

- In identical Tasks 1b of Sect. 7 and 1c of Sect. 4, “Monitor and evaluate effects of

watershed use on water quality and habitat quality. . .etc.,” what will be measured,

what is the sampling design, and what are the measurement techniques? What were

the results from previous years?
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

85

- In Task 1c of Sect. 7, “Monitor fish growth and condition. . .,” what is the sampling

design, and what are the measurement and evaluation techniques? What were the

results from previous years?

- In Task 2a of Sect. 7, “Monitor harvest,” what is the sampling design, and what are

the measurement and estimation techniques? (See later discussion of this task’s

inordinately high budget.)

- In Task 1a of Sect. 6 (O&M), involving maintenance of “habitat quality to maximize

potential carrying capacity and fish harvest,” what will be the methods of

maintenance, how would habitat quality be affected, and how would this maximize

carrying capacity?

The oral presentation spent much time on statutory authorizations directing resident fish

substitution but gave little information on operations and results. Questioning of

personnel during the field tour (at Tunnel Pond) and after the oral presentation yielded

some detail. The program has 3 ponds and plans to build 6 to 12 more. Two of them are

small reservoirs (not seen on the field tour) built by BIA in 1994, in unsuitable form, at

unsuitable sites, and with unsuitable water supply (runoff containing excessive nutrients

from agricultural surroundings). They are poor habitat for trout. The third and newer

Tunnel Pond is groundwater-fed and provides better though not optimal conditions for

trout. The “put-and-take fishery” program provides for angler harvest by purchasing

hatchery-reared rainbow trout of table-food size and stocking them in the ponds.

At Tunnel Pond, the best of the three sites, 2,500 to 3,000 lb of hatchery trout are stocked

annually—last year at a size of 0.75 to 1 lb. each (which converts to about 13 or 14

inches). Here, return to the creel has been 84%, stated also as about 2,000 lb. Thus, fewer

pounds of fish are harvested than are stocked. This means that conditions in the pond are

such that fish growth does not make up for natural (non-fishing) mortality. The pond is

either a poor place for trout to grow or for them to survive, or it is poor place for both

essential processes. Similar amounts are stocked in each of the other two ponds, and

return to anglers is even worse there than in Tunnel Pond. If a pond is sited at a proper

water supply, is properly designed and built, and is properly managed, more pounds of

trout will be harvested than are stocked—far more.

The difference between harvest rate in Tunnel Pond and the others is consistent with

findings elsewhere that better limnological conditions for fish occur where ponds are

created not by damming streams but by using a groundwater supply. Damming a stream

subjects the resultant pond to the stream’s supply of sediment and dissolved nutrients.

Excessive algal and other plant growth and consequent dissolved oxygen insufficiency

tends to occur in such ponds, mainly because the stream brings phosphorus from uphill

land uses that cannot be adequately controlled. In contrast, groundwater- or spring-fed

ponds have a water supply from which phosphorus has been filtered, and if humangenerated activities are properly controlled on the smaller uphill areas involved, such

ponds will maintain good conditions for trout. Such sites should be selected for the

program’s future ponds. One reviewer suspects the region’s geology makes proper sites

rare or unavailable. If so, and if ponds can be created here only by damming streams,

then curtailment of the program’s expansion should be carefully considered. Stream-
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

86

dammed ponds will involve major ongoing, costly problems and perpetuation of the

project’s inefficiency.

Although costs are not central to this scientific review, reviewers felt compelled to raise

the issue of costs and benefits on this project. The project operates extremely

inefficiently, seen in the light of dollars expended vs. harvest results. The harvest is

costing around $30 or more per pound of fish, assuming the FY 2000 expenditure was a

bit less than the requested FY 2002 budget. If FY 2002 harvest equals that of FY 2000

(2,774 kg) and the budget remains as proposed, the result will be close to $40/lb.

Obviously, costs toward building new ponds contribute to the apparent inefficiency, but

those planning and design costs have persisted for years, these and construction costs

would continue under the present plan, and they could not be amortized to bring total cost

per pound down to a reasonable level for many, many more years, if ever.

The impending FY 2002 inefficiency could be cut substantially by eliminating Task 2a,

harvest monitoring. This task need be done only at several-year intervals (consult a

biometrician on design frequency). To date, it has amply shown that the ponds perform

poorly, and it can be discontinued for the next several years. In any event, the reviewers

question the annual budget for harvest monitoring, especially as no design for sampling

and estimation is shown. At $97,342, catch estimation is scheduled to cost over 7 times as

much as the $13,500 for stocking the fish. If the 3 ponds yield the same 6,103-lb harvest

as in FY 2000, the scheduled cost of monitoring this would be $15.94/lb.

The sponsor could likewise discontinue Task 1c (budget page 7), monitoring of fish

growth and condition, until new ponds at built. Such monitoring also need not be done

every year. The task’s $21,902 would add $3.59/lb to the cost of harvested fish (at FY

2000 harvest rate). This task’s budget, if it is justified at all, might well be reduced. The

monitoring and analysis designs should be shown.

The proposal should clearly summarize in tables and graphs the results of all of the

project’s past monitoring.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

87

Project ID: 199607702

Protect and Restore Lolo Creek Watershed

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries Watershed Program

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Protect, restore, and enhance the Lolo Creek Watershed to provide

quality habitat for anadromous and resident fish. This will be accomplished by watershed

restoration projects such as culvert replacement, road obliteration, and streambank

stabilization.

FY02 Request: $502,192

3 YR Estimate: $1,924,921

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. This project has run since 1996, but the watershed assessment is not

yet complete. Passage is a limiting factor due to culverts. Needs have been prioritized.

Biological results are in NPTH M and E.

In general a very thorough, informative proposal. The long-needed watershed analysis is

scheduled to be completed in September 2001. If this is not done, all other project work

should be halted until it is, so management can be designed according to WA findings.

The proposal states that bioengineering is the project’s approach for stabilizing stream

banks. However, Figures 2 and 3 show hard structure (rock rip-rap and a rock current

deflector), in other words, the opposite of bioengineering. Rock rip-rap is primarily

counterproductive for fish habitat. It usually provides little habitat compared with live

vegetation and wood debris, and it prevents natural channel migration. Natural stream

channels migrate at a moderate rate, in the process providing fish habitat by such actions

as carving bank undercuts, toppling trees into the channel, and recruiting gravel to the

bed. The illustrations indicate that the sponsor is constructing so as to lock the channel in

an unchanging course.

How many stream miles have been directly benefited by the project since 1996, will be in

FY 2002, and are anticipated to be during the projected rest of the project life?

Of what does the consultation in Tasks 1b consist? “Consult” seems a vague term, and

the cost of $22,200 seems high.

The reviewers are given to understand that the project’s biological results will be

evaluated under the NPTH M&E project. The project history states only activities

performed, not biological results achieved. The proposal should contain results in terms

of fish.

Tasks 3E and 3F involve survey of in-stream structures that were installed in the 1970s80s to identify and remedy problems. The wording indicates that problem assessment will

be on an engineering basis. Biologists should be involved to determine in each case

whether there is really any problem for fish—and to make sure that engineering remedies

will not cause ecological problems.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

88

Although this proposal describes some M and E linkages (“tiers”), this proposal and the

set of NPT habitat proposals need to demonstrate closer ties to the NPT and other fish

monitoring projects in the watershed and province (e.g. NPT projects 1988335003,

199703000, IDFG project 199107300, and the ISS studies). In the long term, fishmonitoring data will be critical in determining the efficacy of the restoration activities.

The response needs to describe clear coordination between this proposal, proposal 28045,

and the NPT fisheries and other entities’ monitoring programs; and demonstrate how data

and analysis will be shared between the projects. In addition, see the ISRP's comments

on 28045 and programmatic comments on M&E at the beginning of this report. The NPT

may want to submit one coordinated response for its numerous habitat projects.

The review group also suggests that future terrestrial monitoring efforts be made

compatible with one of the national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of

the National Resources Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve

the region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews in the

Columbia Plateau.

Project ID: 199607703

Protecting and Restoring the Waw'aatamnima (Fishing)(Squaw) Creek to 'Imnaamatnoon

(Legendary Bear)(Papoose) Creek Watersheds Analysis Area

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries Watershed Program

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Protecting and restoring the Waw'aatamnima (Fishing) Creek to

'Imnaamatnoon (Legendary Bear) Creek Watersheds Analysis Area by using a holistic

approach, based on a completed watershed analysis, is the overall goal of this on-going

project.

FY02 Request: $489,300

3 YR Estimate: $1,518,500

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response. The proposal is generally good. The project has demonstrated an excellent

ability to decommission roads, but the proposal should show results in terms of fish for

the work done since 1996. The proposal indicates that the projects creeks are included as

treatment streams under Project 199809802, Salmon Supplementation in Idaho Rivers, so

reviewers assume it will be monitored biologically as such; is this so? Is physical

monitoring of stream variables covered under Project 28045? Continue culvert

replacement, road obliteration.

According to the oral presentation, creation of instream habitat for salmonids, namely

pools, will be done in addition to road obliteration and culvert modification, although this

habitat work is not mentioned in the proposal’s section on objectives, tasks and methods.

As described in the presentation, more biological understanding seems to be needed in

planning and designing the habitat restorations, and this work should be better described.

It was stated that rock structures would be used to create pools. Log (LWD) structure did

not seem to have been considered, and no awareness was demonstrated that log/LWD

structures generally provide much better pool habitat for salmonids than rock-formed

pools do. None of the proposal’s references is a primary literature source on structural
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

89

habitat for salmonids; the proposal should incorporate comprehensive information from

such sources.

General comment for NPT habitat projects: Although M and E linkages (“tiers”) are

provided in the set of NPT habitat proposals, this proposal and the set of NPT habitat

proposals need to demonstrate closer ties to the NPT and other fish monitoring projects in

the watershed and province (e.g. NPT projects 1988335003, 199703000, IDFG project

199107300, and the ISS studies). In the long term, fish-monitoring data will be critical in

determining the efficacy of the restoration activities. The response needs to describe

clear coordination between this proposal, proposal 28045, and the NPT fisheries and

other entities’ monitoring programs; and demonstrate how data and analysis will be

shared between the projects. In addition, see the ISRP's comments on 28045 and

programmatic comments on M&E at the beginning of this report. The NPT may want to

submit one coordinated response for its numerous habitat projects.

Project ID: 199607705

Restore McComas Meadows/Meadow Creek Watershed

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries Watershed Program

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Protect and restore critical riparian/stream habitat in Meadow Creek

thru streambank stabilization, riparian re-vegetation, road decommissioning, culvert

replacement/repair, and native plant restoration.

FY02 Request: $573,832

3 YR Estimate: $1,221,301

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. All of these should be better tied to the NPTH M and E project to

monitor fish response. See 199706000 and 199608600. How many miles of stream has

this project benefited? How many stream miles will be benefited by the time the project

is finished?

General comment for NPT habitat projects: Although M and E linkages (“tiers”) are

provided in the set of NPT habitat proposals, this proposal and the set of NPT habitat

proposals need to demonstrate closer ties to the NPT and other fish monitoring projects in

the watershed and province (e.g. NPT projects 1988335003, 199703000, IDFG project

199107300, and the ISS studies). In the long term, fish-monitoring data will be critical in

determining the efficacy of the restoration activities. The response needs to describe

clear coordination between this proposal, proposal 28045, and the NPT fisheries and

other entities’ monitoring programs; and demonstrate how data and analysis will be

shared between the projects. In addition, see the ISRP's comments on 28045 and

programmatic comments on M&E at the beginning of this report. The NPT may want to

submit one coordinated response for its numerous habitat projects.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

90

Project ID: 199608600

Clearwater Focus Program

Sponsor: Idaho Soil Conservation Commission

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Complete subbasin assessment develop subbasin plan, coordinate

public review and input, and coordinate implementation projects

FY02 Request: $103,626

3 YR Estimate: $310,878

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. What watershed assessment protocols are being followed? How

complete is the subbasin assessment? Much data was revealed to be missing in the set of

project presentations; e.g. details of roads, landslide etc. in subwatersheds. The PAC has

broad membership and could be a lead in the Subbasin Planning effort, including M&E,

which is missing here. See 199706000 – comments apply.

Project ID: 199706000

Clearwater Subbasin Focus Watershed Program - NPT

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Manage and implement a comprehensive system to coordinate

multiple jurisdictions, agencies, and private landowners within the Clearwater River

Subbasin. These efforts will protect, restore, and enhance anadromous fisheries habitat.

FY02 Request: $218,000

3 YR Estimate: $702,000

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed.

1. Complete all watershed assessments according to standard protocols and format and

clearly define methods, with references.

2. Indicate the project connection to the monitoring and evaluation plan at the subbasin

scale.

These are similar comments to the previous review, although evidence of a cooperative

approach was strong and team players appear effective in focusing restoration approaches

– there is much of that to do. Help from a contract biometrician must be obtained in

planning the overall M&E as well as stock assessment work.

This project and 199608600 represent the management structure for coordination of

projects within the Clearwater sub-basin. Listing projects by type reveals the following:

Project type Number

management 2

assessment 5

Hatchery 10 6 are for M&E, supplementation

Habitat 25 19 are rehabilitation, including 3 BMPs
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

91

The proposed stock assessment projects include harvest monitoring, and the distribution

and status of bull trout, Pacific lamprey, A-run steelhead, and westslope cutthroat. As a

stock assessment plan, it appears limited in scope. A Sub-Basin assessment plan that

focuses on ecosystem structure and function with fish as the primary indicator of

ecosystem health is recommended. The Subbasin Summaries provide the trend

information available. The Focus Group(s) must utilize that information to improve upon

an assessment plan. It will require monitoring of key indicator stocks for trends in

abundance, distribution, and survival. It does not require measuring all things in all

places. Survival status must include both freshwater and marine life stages of salmonids.

The stock status and recruitment information becomes the guide for prioritization of

management decisions on harvest, as well as projects on hatchery programs and habitat

rehabilitation. Develop a stock-status-based framework for management decisions,

reviewed and approved by the management agencies involved.

Hatchery and habitat projects must now be treated as management experiments. Thus,

projects must contain a connection to a monitoring and evaluation plan. Please refer to

ISRP comments contained within habitat rehabilitation projects within this set in the

Clearwater, but also those provided in ISRP reviews over the last 3 years, in all subbasins. Within the Clearwater, consider the list of habitat projects and select treatment

and control sites (preferably at random, but this is seldom logistically possibly to

subsequently implement in the field). Smolt yield is the recommended response variable

for effectiveness monitoring at the watershed scale. Response monitoring within

individual projects might rely on other means to assess trends in habitat character or fish

presence/absence and utilization, such as, for example, stream temperature (if that was

identified as the limiting factor), or by electrofishing or snorkeling in upstream controls

and treated areas. Some projects suggested sampling within all trophic levels, or a

detailed process-oriented modeling approach. Rarely is that level of investigation

relevant, other than in research-level studies. The task of the Focus Group must include

coordination of monitoring and evaluation within the basin, with recommendations for

the level required in each project.

Habitat rehabilitation projects must be indicate their order of importance. An

independent review team has difficulty in recommending projects without a clear

indication of what local managers consider to be the key problems and solutions. The

Focus Group needs to report on or develop a process of setting priority to watershed

assessment and rehabilitation plans, and convey this message to reviewers.

The other tool that has been proposed to assist the fish populations of the Clearwater SubBasin is hatchery production. There are arguments for and against this approach, but

central to this debate is an evaluation of its effectiveness as a tool in protecting or

enhancing wild production in listed or threatened stocks. Thus, the same control and

treatment approach at the watershed scale and with wild smolt monitoring is required.

Most hatchery plans are for supplementation (also called intervention) work. The Focus

Group must carefully weigh the advantages of these short-term projects (or what should

be only short term, i.e. one generation, if truly supplementation) and the interaction of
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

92

that work with habitat rehabilitation work. Will they increased benefits in wild smolt

yield that will hopefully be measured at treated (habitat rehabilitation) sites be

distinguishable from the effects of supplementation (if indeed there are positive benefits

to wild fish by supplementation as proposed)? Currently, a confusing set of monitoring

and evaluation projects is proposed to assess supplementation. What does the Focus

Group recommend, and why?

We are suggesting in the above that the Focus Group play a larger role in subbasin

decision making and planning. We do this based on the abilities that were displayed in

their project proposals, field tour, and presentations, that suggested a strong potential

exists.

If the group cannot adequately perform the coordinating role suggested in the above

towards recommendations and priorities for habitat rehabilitation, hatchery projects, and

M&E, then please more clearly explain what the Focus Group means by

“comprehensively coordinate multiple agencies”, and suggest where that coordinated

approach we suggest is provided otherwise. In other words, if not you, then who?

Project ID: 199901400

Little Canyon Creek Subwatershed-Steelhead Trout Habitat Improvement Project

Sponsor: Lewis Soil Conservation District

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Reduce sedimentation to improve instream habitat in Lower Little

Canyon Creek and the lower Clearwater River, and improve upland water storage by

implementing best management practices for sediment reduction and water retention.

FY02 Request: $236,500

3 YR Estimate: $649,500

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. The response needs to list the BMPs, convince us that the BMP's are

appropriate and tie to an assessment, prescription and restoration plan. Provide these

plans. One of the BMPs appeared to be catchment ponds, but another project talked

about removing ponds to avoid evaporation. Indicate how much has been done and how

much needs to be done.

This is a thorough proposal for a watershed project of a type that should be encouraged

and supported. The biological monitoring strategy (Task 5b) is not presented in enough

detail. Under “Method,” the plan (which is not a method) is to contract a survey of fish

density and riparian habitat during the project’s first summer (2002) and prepare a report

for “peer review,” comparing results to the findings of Kucera et al. (1983) so as to relate

project accomplishments. The prospects for meaningful results from this are poor. The

reliability of inferring a trend from two data points is low. Monitoring, using consistent

methods, should be started at least a year or two before the project’s first year, then

continued for at least 6 years after project completion. The survey methods are not

described.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

93

See reviews for 199901500 and comments in 199706000 and 199608600 and respond in

relation to this project.

Project ID: 199901500

Restoring Anadromous Fish Habitat in Big Canyon Watershed

Sponsor: Nez Perce Soil and Water Conservation District

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Implement agricultural and fish habitat Best Management Practices

in the Big Canyon watershed with the goals of reducing sediment and nutrient delivery,

improving water retention in uplands, reducing stream temperature, and restoring riparian

function.

FY02 Request: $193,452

3 YR Estimate: $600,356

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. Project staff demonstrated enthusiasm for working with private

landowners in the watershed to implement best management practices for agriculture and

ranching. Please provide a summary of the number of contracts entered into in the years

2000 and 2001 as part of this program, and a descriptive list of the BMPs implemented in

those contracts and the acreage involved for each BMP.

An ongoing concern of reviewers is being able to attribute improvements in soil and

water management to fish and to fish habitat; the proposal does not show evidence that

this issue is satisfactorily resolved. Stream temperature monitoring (goal IV, objective 2)

might provide valuable information. Please describe where the six dataloggers will be

placed and discuss how the data will be used (comparison with existing data, ability to

compare before/after treatment and in paired, treatment-vs-control subwatersheds, etc.).

Also, provide additional detail about how BMP effectiveness (goal IV, objective 1) will

be assessed in terms of measured variables other than stream temperature.

Project design must be made specific. Please remedy vague statements, such as that for

Goal IV, Obj. 1, Task A, which says: “collect...data...as appropriate.” What constitutes

appropriateness? Another example is “selected sites.” How will the selection be done?

A stronger monitoring approach would be for project staff to engage more actively in the

design of the fish population monitoring conducted under proposal 99901600. We

suggest that staff provide a response demonstrating that such fish population monitoring

will help assess gains of projects 199901500 and 199901600. In addition, see the ISRP's

programmatic comments on M&E at the beginning of this report.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

94

Project ID: 199901600

Protect and Restore Big Canyon Creek Watershed

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries Watershed Program

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: This project will protect, restore and return critical spawning and

rearing habitat using a ridge top to ridge top approach, based on a completed watershed

assessment

FY02 Request: $355,000

3 YR Estimate: $1,588,300

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. Reviewers encountered many difficulties in reading this proposal, the

most troubling being repeated reference to Lapwai Creek in many of its sections. For

example, the section on relationships to other projects begins "within the Lapwai Creek

watershed" and fails to mention the NPSWCD Big Canyon project 199901500 with

which this project is closely associated. Please clarify and submit a revised proposal.

This project has been underway for 3 years at a cost of about $280K. The proposal

shows virtually no ties to anadromous or resident fish. The sole tangible product is a

watershed assessment, completed in August 2001. Please provide a copy of that

assessment as a portion of this response. Reviewers will be interested to see how limiting

factors are addressed for fish, especially steelhead, and how activities are prioritized to

target critical preservation and or restoration.

Continuation funding of about $600K/year is requested for the following on-the-ground

activities: replace 3 culverts, obliterate about 10 mi. of road/year, and build 2 mi. of

fence. Please describe how those activities were selected via the watershed assessment

process, and how they will significantly improve fish production in Big Canyon Creek.

Please describe in detail the M&E design and methods for assessing fish population

responses in “surveyed streams” (Goal 4, Objective 1, Tasks B and C). Describe the

system of treatment and control streams and/or reaches to be used. Exactly how will the

electrofishing and snorkel-counting be done? How will the density estimates of juvenile

chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and associated fish species be calculated (name an

appropriate standard method for each different situation, and reference a literature source

on it)? How will it be determined that the samples of fish lengths, weights, and scales

from juvenile fish are “representative”? Describe how the spawning surveys for steelhead

will be conducted.

General comment for NPT habitat projects: Although M and E linkages (“tiers”) are

provided in the set of NPT habitat proposals, this proposal and the set of NPT habitat

proposals need to demonstrate closer ties to the NPT and other fish monitoring projects in

the watershed and province (e.g. NPT projects 1988335003, 199703000, IDFG project

199107300, and the ISS studies). In the long term, fish-monitoring data will be critical in

determining the efficacy of the restoration activities. The response needs to describe

clear coordination between this proposal, proposal 28045, and the NPT fisheries and

other entities’ monitoring programs; and demonstrate how data and analysis will be
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

95

shared between the projects. In addition, see the ISRP's comments on 28045 and

programmatic comments on M&E at the beginning of this report. The NPT may want to

submit one coordinated response for its numerous habitat projects.

Some of the sources referenced in the proposal’s text do not appear in the reference list.

Project ID: 199901700

Protect and Restore Lapwai Creek Watershed

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries Watershed Program

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: This project will protect, restore and return critical spawning and

rearing fish habitat using a ridge top to ridge top approach, based on a completed

watershed assessment.

FY02 Request: $436,600

3 YR Estimate: $1,669,900

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. According to the proposal, a watershed assessment was to be

completed for this project in August 2001. Please provide a copy of that assessment as a

portion of this response.

Continuation funding of about $600K/year is requested to do the following on-the-ground

activities: participate in replacing a bridge, replace 3 culverts, obliterate approximately 10

mi. of road/year, and build 2 mi. of fence. Replacing the bridge will be of undoubted

benefit to fish; for the other activities, please describe how they were selected via the

watershed assessment process and how they will significantly improve fish production in

Lapwai Creek.

Also, the reviewers are interested in why these latter activities were identical to those

proposed for Big Canyon Creek, yet the two watersheds appear significantly different.

Please describe in detail the M&E design and methods for assessing fish population

responses (p. 30, Objective 8, Tasks B and C). Describe the system of treatment and

control streams and/or reaches to be used. Exactly how will the electrofishing and

snorkel-counting be done? How will the density estimates of juvenile chinook salmon,

steelhead trout, and associated fish species be calculated (name an appropriate standard

method for each different situation, and reference a literature source on it)? How will it

be determined that the samples of fish lengths, weights, and scales from juvenile fish are

“representative”? Describe how the spawning surveys for steelhead will be conducted.

General comment for NPT habitat projects: Although M and E linkages (“tiers”) are

provided in the set of NPT habitat proposals, this proposal and the set of NPT habitat

proposals need to demonstrate closer ties to the NPT and other fish monitoring projects in

the watershed and province (e.g. NPT projects 1988335003, 199703000, IDFG project

199107300, and the ISS studies). In the long term, fish-monitoring data will be critical in

determining the efficacy of the restoration activities. The response needs to describe
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

96

clear coordination between this proposal, proposal 28045, and the NPT fisheries and

other entities’ monitoring programs; and demonstrate how data and analysis will be

shared between the projects. In addition, see the ISRP's comments on 28045 and

programmatic comments on M&E at the beginning of this report. The NPT may want to

submit one coordinated response for its numerous habitat projects.

Project ID: 199901800

Characterize and quantify residual steelhead in the Clearwater River, Idaho

Sponsor: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Describe unsuccessful hatchery smolts released into the Clearwater

basin. Assess potential negative interactions with wild steelhead and recommend

modifications to hatchery practices to produce more effective smolts and reduce

hatchery/wild interactions.

FY02 Request: $101,950

3 YR Estimate: $134,950

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. This project should not be funded unless a much better proposal is

submitted—one that has a sampling design truly addressing the residualism problem, as

noted in FY00 comments. The present proposal fails to adequately address problems

identified during the FY00 review. As pointed out in the FY00 review, the proposed

project is unlikely to contribute significantly to our understanding of residualism. Also,

the investigational design may include the wrong sampling dates (too late, i.e., residual

hatchery fish have displaced wild parr, then died or left) and has no treatment-and-control

design. Perhaps the Clearwater River is the wrong place to address this question.

Only gray literature is referenced. More fundamental, peer-reviewed papers on the

subject exist and should be discussed in the proposal. For example, the major Yakima

system work on residualism by McMichael and others is not referenced.

Project ID: 200002800

Evaluate Status of Pacific Lamprey in the Clearwater River Drainage, Idaho

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: To determine distribution, population status, and life history

information for Pacific Lamprey in the Clearwater River subbasin.

FY02 Request: $144,550

3 YR Estimate: $464,550

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Fundable. No response needed. The methods, which are reasonably well detailed, are

aimed at evaluation of background information for various life history stages of the

animal. This proposal addresses a need for information in a systematic way. It provides

good scientific/technical background and justification, and appears to be well coordinated

with other projects. The proposal requests "full" ($160K) funding through FY 04 and

then reduced funding for FY05. However, this study should be complete in no more than

three field seasons (00 – 02) with some wrap-up on the end. At the presentation it was
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

97

noted that a UI grad student will be on the project. If they have not yet started it might be

reasonable to go another year, but this is approaching a point where the Council and

CBFWA may want to consider if the project is too expensive for the information gained.

Project ID: 200003400

Protect and Restore the North Lochsa Face Analysis Area Watersheds

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Protect and Restore the North Lochsa Face Watershed by working

within an overall watershed approach, based on comprehensive studies of the analysis

area. The overall goal of this project is to increase anadromous fish populations.

FY02 Request: $285,835

3 YR Estimate: $996,862

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A Response is needed. This is a road obliteration project on a massive scale. The

proposal and presentation were well done. The project is well organized. Mass wasting is

primary contributing factor to sedimentation input. Justification for project location was a

good addition to the presentation and should be included in other presentations. The NPT

is in a lawsuit against FS over an EIS counting joint NPT/FS road obliteration and

improvements as mitigation for proposed building of new FS roads; the NPT position is

that BPA funding should not be used to promote FS roading and logging. The proposal

referred to this controversy so vaguely that readers who lack background on the issue

could not possibly understand what was written.

The project’s Objective 4, M&E for “watershed, stream and aquatic [fish and other

organisms inferred]” is “tiered to a proposal being submitted by our program,” which

surely refers to Project 28045. However, this planned coordination should be made more

specific, especially with regard to monitoring of biological results—a programmatic

monitoring matter.

General comment for NPT habitat projects: Although M and E linkages (“tiers”) are

provided in the set of NPT habitat proposals, this proposal and the set of NPT habitat

proposals need to demonstrate closer ties to the NPT and other fish monitoring projects in

the watershed and province (e.g. NPT projects 1988335003, 199703000, IDFG project

199107300, and the ISS studies). In the long term, fish-monitoring data will be critical in

determining the efficacy of the restoration activities. The response needs to describe

clear coordination between this proposal, proposal 28045, and the NPT fisheries and

other entities’ monitoring programs; and demonstrate how data and analysis will be

shared between the projects. In addition, see the ISRP's comments on 28045 and

programmatic comments on M&E at the beginning of this report. The NPT may want to

submit one coordinated response for its numerous habitat projects.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

98

Project ID: 200003500

Rehabilitate Newsome Creek Watershed - South Fork Clearwater River

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries Watershed

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Protect and enhance Newsome Creek Watershed for the benefit of

both resident and anadromous fish using an overall watershed approach. This project is a

cooperative project between the Nez Perce Tribe and the Nez Perce National Forest.

FY02 Request: $287,732

3 YR Estimate: $1,424,334

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. This is a road decommissioning and culvert remedy project that

includes possible stream channel restructuring to remedy dredge mining damage. The

latter objective is laudably planned to be abandoned if a feasibility study shows that

option to be warranted. The proposal is extremely well written, so logically organized

and clearly put that it made review a pleasure. A major additional need in project design

is for all of the activities to be explicitly coordinated with the NPTH M&E project to

monitor habitat and fish response. The channel modification study, plan, and site should

be independently reviewed by a team of geomorphologists before it is decided what to

do.

General comment for NPT habitat projects: Although M and E linkages (“tiers”) are

provided in the set of NPT habitat proposals, this proposal and the set of NPT habitat

proposals need to demonstrate closer ties to the NPT and other fish monitoring projects in

the watershed and province (e.g. NPT projects 1988335003, 199703000, IDFG project

199107300, and the ISS studies). In the long term, fish-monitoring data will be critical in

determining the efficacy of the restoration activities. The response needs to describe

clear coordination between this proposal, proposal 28045, and the NPT fisheries and

other entities’ monitoring programs; and demonstrate how data and analysis will be

shared between the projects. In addition, see the ISRP's comments on 28045 and

programmatic comments on M&E at the beginning of this report. The NPT may want to

submit one coordinated response for its numerous habitat projects.

Project ID: 200003600

Protect & Restore Mill Creek

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries Watershed Program

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Enhance critical riparian areas through re-vegetation and maintaining

the cattle exclusion fence, and replacing/repairing culverts which pose a fish/aquatic

barrier to restore quality habitat for chinook salmon, steelhead trout, bull trout and

resident fish.

FY02 Request: $105,560

3 YR Estimate: $482,511

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. This is basic habitat management and protection, with a little

rehabilitation to correct bad practices of the past, but it does not seem to be led by a

thorough condition assessment and prescription.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

99

As with Project 199607702, how many stream miles have been directly benefited by the

project since 1996, will be in FY 2002, and are anticipated to be during the projected rest

of the project life? And, of what does the consultation in Tasks 1b consist? “Consult”

seems a vague term (talk with some people?); the cost of $53,900 for it seems high.

General comment for NPT habitat projects: Although M and E linkages (“tiers”) are

provided in the set of NPT habitat proposals, this proposal and the set of NPT habitat

proposals need to demonstrate closer ties to the NPT and other fish monitoring projects in

the watershed and province (e.g. NPT projects 1988335003, 199703000, IDFG project

199107300, and the ISS studies). In the long term, fish-monitoring data will be critical in

determining the efficacy of the restoration activities. The response needs to describe

clear coordination between this proposal, proposal 28045, and the NPT fisheries and

other entities’ monitoring programs; and demonstrate how data and analysis will be

shared between the projects. In addition, see the ISRP's comments on 28045 and

programmatic comments on M&E at the beginning of this report. The NPT may want to

submit one coordinated response for its numerous habitat projects.

Blue Mountain Province Proposals

Asotin

Project ID: 199401805

Continued Coordination and Implementation of Asotin Creek Watershed Projects

Sponsor: Asotin County Conservation District

Subbasin: Asotin

Short Description: Coordinate, assess, protect, restore and monitor holistically based

fish habitat cost-share programs in Asotin Creek watershed. Continue "grass-root" public

and agency cooperation and collaboration for identified priority projects benefiting ESA

species

FY02 Request: $297,285

3 YR Estimate: $990,285

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response needed. This is a well-written proposal that addresses the ISRP’s concerns

about providing a comprehensive review of restoration programs within the basin and

information on biological benefits. The level of involvement by all stakeholders in the

subbasin in the planning and implementation of restoration is impressive and could serve

as a model for many other locations in the basin. It is reminiscent of the stakeholder

involvement and cooperation we observed in the Hood River and John Day subbasin

tours.

The project needs to present some analysis and interpretation of M&E data that justify its

past actions and continued plans. As for proposal below (27001), this proposal is short on

methods, which are needed especially for the more intensive active restoration projects.

The proposal gives a good summary of past activities and accomplishments in general,
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

100

but should present some of the M&E data that are being gathered by WDFW. A more

detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of the BMPs, such as direct seed, would be

helpful. The project proponents seem very committed to a specific set of best actions,

which raises concerns about how carefully and critically they monitor outcomes or

consider alternative actions.

The ISRP’s tour of the Asotin subbasin provided convincing evidence and discussion on

the willingness of local landowners to be involved in the CREP and direct seed programs.

A major question is whether the expected benefits of the direct seeding program can be

realized and whether these benefits will compel local farmers to continue direct seed

practices after the initial incentive programs end. The no-till or direct seeding component

of the project needs to include or be linked to an economic analysis. Will the short-term

incentives result in a lasting change? What is the long-term effect of more intensive use

of herbicides with no-till and direct seed? Implementation of the CREP and direct seed

incentive programs is presently limited by lack of adequate staffing. Another major

question is whether the expected sediment reductions are occurring, and most

importantly, whether these can be directly related to changes in salmonid abundance.

Finally, there is a need for stronger justifications for the role of active vs. passive stream

restoration in projects. What role are natural processes going to take in the restoration

programs, e.g., building stream meanders back into a system? What happens when a big

flood arrives and moves the stream out of its newly engineered channel? This and many

other projects are restructuring channelized and degraded streams into newly engineered

meandering stream channels. A concern of the reviewers is that while these initial steps

may help jump start stream rehabilitation and shoreline revegetation, future hydrologic

events and geomorphic processes may move the stream out of the newly engineered

channel to interact with the larger local landscape and form new unanticipated stream

courses. Efforts to retain the stream in the engineered channel, such as reinforcing or

riprapping banks run counter to the present desire to reestablish normative process in

stream and river corridors.

The field tour and presentation indicated an overemphasis on quick-fix methods of stream

channel “stabilization.” Excessive reliance on construction of hard (rockwork) structures

may be creating an inflexible channel. This prevents another approach of the project,

namely, developing riparian vegetation, from performing what should be one of its

primary purposes: retarding bank erosion, while letting the channel gradually “meander

and return to natural functions” (proposal p. 942). The project could form more and better

salmonid habitat (including pools) in the long run and be in closer keeping with stream

restoration science by emphasizing natural channel formation (course migration, damped

by riparian vegetation) rather than the hard engineering now being used. In the project,

riparian vegetation seems to be viewed almost solely as a way to reduce summer

temperature; its function as structural habitat for fish and as a binder of streambank soils

should also be prominently recognized.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

101

Project ID: 27001

Asotin County Riparian Buffer and Course and Tenmile Creeks Protection and

Implementation Project

Sponsor: Asotin County Conservation District

Subbasin: Asotin

Short Description: Implement BMP's to protect and enhance watersheds in Asotin

County with ESA listed steelhead and chinook. Utilize cost-share from USDA, WCC

and SFRB as match to BPA Funds to implement riparian buffers under the CREP

Program (RPA Actions 152 & 153).

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. Questions raised above concerning Project 199401805 also apply

to this project. This proposal emphasizes buffers for riparian areas but also includes

actions to ensure Best Management (BMP) activities on uplands and some instream

work. The latter two are barely described in the proposal, though the site visit and

presentation indicate that sediment basins and direct seed agriculture are the upland

actions. The proposal focuses on administrative tasks rather than on the science to be

applied, so is very hard to follow and evaluate. A response needs to focus on the actions

to be taken, and especially to develop and justify these for the active instream work,

which is barely described. Further, noxious weed control needs explanation and

justification. These active management-intensive techniques require M&E to justify their

costs, quantify their environmental side-effects, and test their effectiveness. The M&E is

limited to a list of tasks, with no detail as to methods or how they will address monitoring

and evaluation goals. The relationship to the proposal above (199401805) is not entirely

clear, though it may be in the proposal somewhere.

A major question is whether the expected benefits of the direct seeding program can be

realized and whether these benefits will compel local farmers to continue direct seed

practices after the initial incentive programs end. The no-till or direct seeding component

of the project needs to include or be linked to an economic analysis. Will the short-term

incentives result in a lasting change? What is the long-term effect of more intensive use

of herbicides with no-till and direct seed? Implementation of the CREP and direct seed

incentive programs is presently limited by lack of adequate staffing. Another major

question is whether the expected sediment reductions are occurring, and most

importantly, whether these can be directly related to changes in salmonid abundance.

Finally, there is a need for stronger justifications for the role of active vs. passive stream

restoration in projects. What role are natural processes going to take in the restoration

programs, e.g., building stream meanders back into a system? What happens when a big

flood arrives and moves the stream out of its newly engineered channel? This and many

other projects are restructuring channelized and degraded streams into newly engineered

meandering stream channels. A concern of the reviewers is that while these initial steps

may help jump start stream rehabilitation and shoreline revegetation, future hydrologic

events and geomorphic processes may move the stream out of the newly engineered

channel to interact with the larger local landscape and form new unanticipated stream

courses. Efforts to retain the stream in the engineered channel, such as reinforcing or
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

102

riprapping banks run counter to the present desire to reestablish normative process in

stream and river corridors.

The field tour and presentation indicated an overemphasis on quick-fix methods of stream

channel “stabilization.” Excessive reliance on construction of hard (rockwork) structures

may be creating an inflexible channel. This prevents another approach of the project,

namely, developing riparian vegetation, from performing what should be one of its

primary purposes: retarding bank erosion, while letting the channel gradually “meander

and return to natural functions”. The project could form more and better salmonid habitat

(including pools) in the long run and be in closer keeping with stream restoration science

by emphasizing natural channel formation (course migration, damped by riparian

vegetation) rather than the hard engineering now being used. In the project, riparian

vegetation seems to be viewed almost solely as a way to reduce summer temperature; its

function as structural habitat for fish and as a binder of streambank soils should also be

prominently recognized.

Project ID: 27014

Protect and Restore the Asotin Creek Watershed

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries Watershed Program

Subbasin: Asotin

Short Description: Contribute to an on-going watershed restoration effort by working in

collaboration with private and federal entities to address sedimentation into stream and

tributaries from road related sources on forested ground within the watershed.

FY02 Request: $121,000

3 YR Estimate: $374,000

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. The PI’s have the requisite experience in road obliteration.

Project goal is to obliterate 22 miles of a series of old (15-20 yrs) logging roads that

parallel the N. Fork of Asotin Cr. The roads in this and upper Charley Creek are

significant sediment sources. Area supports significant juvenile steelhead rearing.

However, area has high road densities. Another goal is to reduce cobble embeddedness

from 35% (current) to 20%. The project needs an M&E component. Such a component

may involve basin-level or watershed-level assessments, at least some of which are likely

present in other proposals from the subbasin. The Asotin group might want to seriously

discuss how to collaboratively monitor results of their work at the larger scales they

address. Stream sedimentation is a common theme, and this is assumed to affect fish.

Stream listings and de-listings, and water quality sampling done by other agencies, may

provide another source of relevant assessment data.

Why 22.04 miles identified for road obliteration (Objective 3), when Objective 2 calls for

inventory, assessment, prioritization, and development of implementation alternatives?

Defining 22.04 miles for obliteration, seems premature given Objective 2. Objective 4 is

inadequate in the present proposal. Rather than describing how M&E (i.e., project

effectiveness in this instance) will be conducted and the structural and biological

effectiveness of the project assessed, the objective describes a process for defining an
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

103

M&E protocol (Task A). The M&E should be specified at this time for review. See the

ISRP’s general comments on M&E at the beginning of this report and the general

comments found in the Nez Perce Tribe’s habitat proposals in the Clearwater.

The review group suggests that future terrestrial monitoring efforts be made compatible

with one of the national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of the

National Resources Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve the

region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews in the

Columbia Plateau.

Project ID: 27009

SSHIAP - Blue Mountain Province

Sponsor: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Subbasin: Asotin and other subbasins in the WA portion of the Blue Mountain Province.

Short Description: Project will provide routed & segmented hydrolayer, and collate and

synthesize data on 19 aquatic habitat variables over an estimated 10,000 mi of streams in

2 salmonid-bearing subbasins in the WA portion of this Province.

FY02 Request: $200,000

3 YR Estimate: $260,000

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. This proposal is for construction of a georeferenced database on

stream habitat and salmonids. What is the priority of this work? The budget is not

adequately justified. This is an important program to compile stream habitat data relating

to the salmonid resource. The proposal is thorough, clearly presented, and describes a

well-established set of methods, referencing pertinent basic literature on the subject. The

staff appears highly qualified for and experienced in the work involved.

The proponents need to present data, background, or letters of support indicating that this

work is needed and supported by those in the basin to whom the data would be provided.

How is this effort different from or better than other data summary or mapping efforts?

The presentation of technical methods is long on jargon and short on clear explanation of

quality and benefits of the work. The link to benefit to fish and wildlife is not clear. The

proponents also should discuss the quality of existing data and whether they are adequate

to support the proposed work.

The review group suggests that future terrestrial monitoring efforts be made compatible

with one of the national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of the

National Resources Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve the

region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews in the

Columbia Plateau.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

104

Project ID: 27002

Assess Salmonids in the Asotin Creek Watershed

Sponsor: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Subbasin: Asotin

Short Description: Evaluate the current productivity and survival rates of anadromous

and resident salmonids in Asotin Creek. Develop a habitat based spring chinook

reintroduction plan and determine if supplementation is required to sustain a wild

steelhead population.

FY02 Request: $316,885

3 YR Estimate: $775,915

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. This project provides the biological monitoring for 199401805 and

has other objectives. The proposal addresses the goals of evaluating current productivity

and survival of salmonids in Asotin Creek, but gives virtually no explanation of how the

goals of developing a reintroduction plan for spring chinook or determining if

supplementation is required to sustain a wild population of steelhead. One also might

well ask if supplementation is compatible with the sustenance of a wild population of

steelhead, and some detail as to how data address these questions should be presented. It

should be clear how the monitoring data will address the evaluation goals.

The method(s) for performing Task 3a (determine abundance of juvenile steelhead)

missing. The proposal references only gray literature, so the scientific background and

methods are inadequately presented. The field tour and presentation, however, amply

showed that the personnel have the necessary methods well in mind.

The proposal includes development of a plan to reintroduce spring chinook back in to the

subbasin (Objective 8). Comprehensive review and data collection plans for adult and

juvenile life history life stages for steelhead, spring chinook and bull trout. Plan for adult

trapping station at Headgate Park – discussion of the difficulties in steelhead trapping at

times of possible peak flows. May lead to a fish ladder with trap, or a combination of

permanent structures with temporary seasonal trapping features

We need more information on how the decision of whether to supplement spring chinook

would occur. The presentation provided a general discussion of this, but did not provide

details of how that decision could be made. How will the collected data on spring

chinook be used to determine whether or not supplementation should be used to enhance

spring chinook abundance in Asotin Creek? This was not specified in the proposal or

presentation. How does one get from the data (population and life history) to

determining whether supplementation is needed? The response should more clearly

explain how personnel intend to collect data on the key parameters and provide the

analysis to inform their primary goals. Language in the proposal suggests that success of

recovery is assumed and that the monitoring and evaluation will be used to document this

expected outcome. The approach should explicitly be cast as a test and clear criteria for

evaluating success versus failure should be stated.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

105

Project ID: 27025

Acquire South Fork Asotin Creek Property

Sponsor: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

Subbasin: Asotin

Short Description: Acquire and protect the 8,500-acre Schlee property in southeastern

Washington. This shrub-steppe habitat harbors elk and mule deer, while its streams

provide a critical link in the Asotin Creek watershed for federally endangered

anadromous fish.

FY02 Request: $3,489,500

3 YR Estimate: $3,559,500

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Fundable. The proposal with the added information from the presentation justifies the

acquisition of the properties as well chosen and a priority. This proposal is for acquisition

of 8500 acres of land, in two parcels, which will extend a current WDFW wildlife area

and contribute to goals of maintaining (and perhaps increasing) elk populations. The

initial budget has refreshingly little O&M, and plans for M&E are presented in detail.

The cost of the land is reasonable and its location and type are very appropriate for the

subbasin and its fish and wildlife goals, as well as well in line with criteria for

prioritization of purchases.

The review group also suggests that future terrestrial monitoring efforts be made

compatible with one of the national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of

the National Resources Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve

the region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews in the

Columbia Plateau.

Snake River Hells Canyon Proposals

Project ID: 199700900

Evaluate Potential Means of Rebuilding Sturgeon Populations in the Snake River

Between Lower Granite and Hells Canyon Dams

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Snake Hells Canyon

Short Description: Evaluate the need for and identify potential measures to protect and

restore white sturgeon between Hells Canyon and Lower Granite dams to obtain a

sustainable annual harvest.

FY02 Request: $290,510

3 YR Estimate: $1,065,510

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. This proposal requests continued funding for an assessment of

white sturgeon from Lower Granite Dam to Hells Canyon Dam in the Snake River, and to

assess the feasibility of achieving a fishery objective of a sustained 5 kg/ha/yr for the

NPT. The proposal needs significant remedial work. The ISRP briefing included data

from past work, giving helpful overview of sturgeon studies in the Hell’s Canyon area

over the last several decades. It also provided a sense of the collaboration among

appropriate entities to conduct this study. The presenter described a plan over the next 3

years to wrap up Phase II of the study, which in turn leads to an adaptive management
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

106

plan (including performing new risk analysis) to develop a revised recovery plan and

specific implementation actions. Apparently a data collection effort has existed within the

project since 1997; the findings should be summarized in the project history section.

The proposal does not identify how to mitigate for lost production but includes funding in

“out years,” which is presumably for mitigation. The reviewers continue to believe that

this is necessary work but are increasingly concerned about how the work is being

conducted and whether appropriate data are being collected for the future assessment and

risk analysis.

For example:

1) The proposal refers to a mark-recapture program with 95% confidence bounds but

refers to estimating the population “throughout the study area, in individual reaches,

and for various size/age classes.” The marking and sampling requirements to achieve

95% CI on each of these strata would be very different, but no design or tagging

description is included. ISRP cannot assess the mark-recapture program in the

absence of a design, and were not provided any historical results.

2) Floy anchor tags are suggested for assessing the retention of PIT tags but retention of

external Floy tags would seem less likely than the injected PIT tags. Why were Floy

tags selected and what have the results been?

3) The proposal describes the boundary between NPT work and the project conducted

by IPC, and comments on a formal data sharing agreement. This is obviously

necessary but it does not comment on whether comparable methods are being used.

This is likely but should be confirmed due to the need to pool data for the analyses.

4) The proposal acknowledges the difficulty of aging fish older than 20 years. Is there a

strategy developed on how to determine these errors ... for example, could

oxytetracyclene be injected to provide bands on otoliths or bony tissue?

5) At what size/age do smaller sturgeon recruit to the sampling gear? How are these

smaller fish being assessed in this project? Is there a concern for the recruitment of

sturgeon from areas above Hells Canyon or are these fish marked discretely?

How does flow fluctuation effect sturgeon production? The project should attempt to

relate demographic parameters to flow fluctuations; data on that have apparently been

collected.

Objectives 5 & 6 require an assessment method or model in order to assess risk and

examine mitigation needs. Such an analytical tool is not referred to in the proposal. Is

support needed to develop this model and who is responsible for this assessment? When

is this assessment due or needed?

Concerning the budget, are tasks 1a and 1b actually different? They have separate

budgets but seem the same in the text. Further, Section 9f states that Objective 1 is

complete, so why is there a budget for continued work? Is FY 2002 the final year?
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

107

Project ID: 27015

Develop Long-Term Management Plan for Snake River (Hells Canyon Reach) White

Sturgeon

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Snake Hells Canyon

Short Description: The project will cooperate with the Idaho Power Company and the

Nez Perce Tribe to develop a long-term management plan for white sturgeon in the Hells

Canyon reach of the Snake River.

FY02 Request: $116,500

3 YR Estimate: $161,500

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Do Not Fund. A response is not warranted. The proposal, asking for support to apply a

previously developed model and thereby assess management options for white sturgeon,

is inadequate. Lacking is detailed description of the model, its validity, and availability

of data needed for the model. It is not clear how the demographic data collected in NPT

project 199700900 would be incorporated into the model. The ISRP briefing did not

indicate the simulation model involved or the capabilities of the model to assess

management options. The proposal seems to be for one IDFG person (a full FTE) to

apply this model during a FREC re-licensing application for the Hells Canyon reach of

the Snake River; it is not evident why this would be a BPA/NPPC responsibility.

Project ID: 199801003

Spawning distribution of Snake River fall chinook salmon

Sponsor: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Subbasin: Snake Hells Canyon

Short Description: Monitor the status and distribution of Snake River fall chinook

salmon, determine if yearling-released supplemented hatchery fish spawn where

intended, and gather information on the spawning distribution of fish released as

subyearlings and natural fish.

FY02 Request: $174,162

3 YR Estimate: $435,962

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response requested. This project includes telemetric monitoring of movements of

returning adult fall chinook from the three acclimation facilities described in 199801005

and from Lyons Ferry releases. Overall, this is a good proposal with excellent cost

sharing and presentation of some data and results. The proposal and presentation

addressed previous comments that better description and interpretation of results to date

was needed to support continued funding.

A response is requested to two issues: First, the proposal states that “on average we

successfully track 30% of all fish tagged to the spawning grounds.” This loss of 70%

was not noted in the briefing and generates questions about prespawning mortality,

spawning locations, tag retention, etc. Are these tags monitored for a period and lost or

how would you explain this loss of information? Second, the proposal also refers to

adaptive management, but this would imply a planned response or experiment given
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

108

certain outcomes of this study. Where is this documented, or was the response to be

determined at the time of these results?

A related issue is that the distribution of the fall chinook spawners is not an adequate

indicator of supplementation. Presumably, once the fish return to these spawning areas

there will be a need to determine whether the population is self-sustaining and what the

sustainable harvest rates can be on the population. This is not immediately related to this

proposal but should be considered in LSRCP evaluations.

Project ID: 199801004

Monitor and EvaluateYearling Snake River Fall Chinook Released Upstream Of Lower

Granite Dam

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Snake Hells Canyon

Short Description: Monitor and evaluate survival and performance of yearling fall

chinook from Pittsburg Landing, Big Canyon, and Captain John acclimation facilities

(Project 199801005) to maximize success of the fall chinook supplementation program

above Lower Granite Dam.

FY02 Request: $330,241

3 YR Estimate: $1,020,741

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. This proposal addresses the M&E portions of the fall chinook

assessments related to the acclimation ponds in the NPT area (Big Canyon, Captain John

Rapids, Pittsburg Landing). M&E include inspections for fish health, tagging with PIT

tags and elastomer tags, and a radio-tracking study to examine the emigration behavior of

fall chinook smolts. While this is an on-going M&E program, a response is requested

since no results are presented and, consequently, the value of the program is not

supported or evident. The project is apparently well integrated with other associated

projects but what results are being used and how are these results integrated in

assessments?

The discussion of the problem of tag loss and other tag effects in the verbal presentation

was not clear. What are the consequences of tag loss or negative effects of tagging on

fish? The proposal does not adequate describe and interpret results to date. The

presentation was helpful in adding to this, but more summary is needed of what has been

learned and problems that might need solution. On-going M & E projects should be

present results in the proposals and presentations. For instance, the SAR data should be

reported.

The evaluation objective for these programs (this proposal and 199801005 [O&M for

acclimation ponds] ) is not clear. The program objectives are to achieve de-listing goals

for fall chinook, to restore harvest, and to maintain the genetic integrity of the natural

populations. The M&E described in this proposal and 199801005 does not seem to

adequately address these goals. Are they to be addressed in another proposal (if so

identify it), or is there a deficiency identified here?
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

109

The methods section presents hypotheses for each objective but then also provides a

“corollary” for each also. These read as if they are the alternative hypothesis but this is

not what a corollary would normally imply. A corollary follows directly from what is

proven, so that if the original hypothesis was correct then a corollary follows obviously

from this result or statement.

Project ID: 199801005

Pittsburg Landing (199801005),Capt. John Rapids (199801007), Big Canyon

(199801008) Fall Chinook Acclimation Facilities

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Snake Hells Canyon

Short Description: Supplement natural production of Snake River fall chinook above

Lower Granite Dam through acclimation and final rearing of Lyons Ferry yearling and

subyearlings at two sites on the Snake River and one site on the Clearwater River.

FY02 Request: $722,000

3 YR Estimate: $2,246,000

Presentation Day, September: 12

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Fundable. This is a hatchery O&M proposal, the M&E for which is in the two above

proposals. The target population is Snake River fall chinook. The overall project has clear

and measurable biological objectives. The goal of current operations and proposals is to

test whether release of acclimated yearling fish reduces straying problems and increases

successful return of spawning fish to specific streams and reaches. Both yearling vs

subyearling and acclimation (vs direct releases at Lyons Ferry) effects are of interest.

Those two M&E proposals reported appropriate results indicating that M&E is underway.

Results to date do not suggest a need for radical or short-term rethinking of operations.

The program should continue efforts to disseminate results in the form of peer-reviewed

publications. Overall Lower Snake program concerns remain, but data are being gathered

to address questions of program success. Complete returns for all three acclimation

facilities will occur in 2002, at which time results should be thoroughly examined and

reported and evaluated.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

110

Project ID: 27016

Evaluate the effects of hyporheic discharge on egg pocket water temperature in Snake

River fall chinook salmon spawning areas

Sponsor: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Subbasin: Snake Hells Canyon

Short Description: Evaluate the relationships among river discharge, hyporheic zone

characteristics, and egg pocket water temperature in Snake River fall chinook salmon

spawning areas; evaluate the potential for improving Snake River fall chinook salmon

smolt survival

FY02 Request: $154,136

3 YR Estimate: $691,776

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is required. This is an innovative and potentially high priority proposal.

Summer flow augmentation to benefit downstream migrating fall chinook has been a

contentious issue within the basin. The investigators hypothesize that extending the

period of stable flows below the Hell’s Canyon complex well into the egg incubation

period could provide more favorable conditions for incubation and decrease the time

required for the eggs to hatch. Earlier emergence would make it possible for juvenile fall

chinook to migrate downstream sooner than they currently do and thus enter the Snake

River reservoirs earlier in the summer, when water temperatures and stream flows are

more beneficial for survival. This change in migration timing could reduce the need for

summer flow augmentation. A clear and reasonable line of logic backs the proposal. The

investigators are exceptionally well qualified to conduct this work.

A response is needed to ensure that Idaho Power is amenable to extending the period of

stable flows below Hell’s Canyon. This response could simply be a supportive letter

indicating the degree of flexibility expected and the situations that may preclude these

changes in late fall flows. The predicted benefits to fall chinook emergence time should

be included in the proposal. It would also be advisable for the investigators to verify (or

have verified) the emergence timing versus degree-days accumulated for this specific

stock if it has not already been determined.

The proposal has excellent cost sharing but other aspects of the budget are less clear.

Why are the indirect costs so large given the limited salary dollars (itemize the costs)?

What is included under supplies, and why would reporting costs (Objective 5) be so

large? The budget information is very scant but could be examined later by a contract

administrator.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

111

Project ID: 27010

Snake River Hells Canyon Tributary Enhancements

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Subbasin: Snake Hells Canyon

Short Description: Protect and enhance important aquatic and terrestrial habitats in

Snake River tributaries in the Idaho portion of the Snake Hells Canyon subbasin.

FY02 Request: $101,000

3 YR Estimate: $2,048,000

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Not fundable. A response is not warranted due to the inadequate submittal. Little

specific justification of the benefits the projects was provided for Snake River salmon

restoration. Were these areas historically significant production areas? How much would

the restoration efforts in these areas increase overall Snake River production? Details for

accomplishing the objectives are insufficient for judging the soundness or potential

benefits of the project.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

112

Imnaha

Project ID: 199701501

Imnaha Smolt Survival and Smolt to Adult Return Rate Quantification

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management

Subbasin: Imnaha

Short Description: Quantify juvenile emigrant abundance, determine smolt survival

from the Imnaha River to Lower Granite and McNary dams, quantify smolt-to-adult

return rate (SAR) of wild/natural chinook salmon at Lower Granite Dam and back to the

Imnaha River

FY02 Request: $466,802

3 YR Estimate: $2,334,258

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. This project proposes to estimate survival and arrival times to

Lower Snake River dams from near the mouth of the Imnaha. It includes year-round

monitoring of fish, with associated construction of a permanent emigrant trap. The

project includes a large increase in scope and budget (almost doubled). This is an

excellent proposal with strong historical perspective, some data presentation, good

rationale explained in section 9c, and timely data management, reporting and availability

(both published and integration with FPC).

A response to the following questions is required:

1) The investigators propose to PIT tag 20,000 natural chinook smolts (5600 fall

migrants and 14,400 spring migrants). This number of smolts is much greater than

previous numbers that have been PIT tagged in this study. What is the likelihood that

the greater number of smolts can actually be tagged? What are the consequences for

estimating SAR’s if the number is not met?

2) The proposal purports to test the assumption that anadromous fish production is

limited by out-of-basin factors (pages 2 and 10). It is not clear how the research

design and data collection proposed by the investigators will test this assumption.

Limiting factors in freshwater would need to be assessed and egg-migrant survival

would need to be measured. The investigators do not propose any early life history

work, nor do they propose to use data on egg-smolt survival that already may have

been collected to test the assumption.

3) Section 8 statement “We consider the SAR measure as the logical step toward

effective population status monitoring.” By itself a SAR estimate is not an adequate

measure of stock performance. SAR is only an explanatory variable in an assessment

and needs to be coupled with information on the number of spawners (stock size) and

growth rate of the population. However, a time series of SARs could be very

informative of the productivity of a stock and its current risk level

4) Clarify the comments on page 2, Section 9. How could SAR measures “reduce

uncertainties regarding fish per redd and prespawning mortality rates by comparing

observations of fish during spawning ground surveys with the expected number of

adult returns from SAR estimates.” This would seem to be very course measure of
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

113

uncertain value. For example, could you differentiate differences in distribution of

spawners from prespawning mortality?

5) Section 9f, Objective 1 is highly dependent upon the estimates of trap efficiency.

There is not discussion of methods for this or presentation of past results. How

consistent are your estimates of trap efficiency, and how are they incorporated into

the estimates of precision about the smolt population size?

6) Section 9f, Objective 4 requires that Section 10 of the ESA Permit 1134 be modified.

Who will be responsible for this and when?

7) Section 9f, Objective 5, Assumption A3: Why is it an assumption, and if it is what

does “excellent” mean in this context? Shouldn’t this detection rate be estimated?

8) Section 9f, Objective 5, Methods describes how the 20,000 PIT target was estimated.

This value was based on past CWT studies and is likely to be conservative given that

PIT tag detection is likely higher. A future objective then may also be to refine the

numbers of PIT tags required in order to reduce the handling stresses on these fish.

Project ID: 27021

Adult Steelhead Status Monitoring - Imnaha River Subbasin

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Imnaha

Short Description: Quantify adult steelhead abundance, population growth rate, spatial

distribution, and genetic stock structure in all tributaries of the Imnaha River subbasin

through the operation of adult spawner escapement monitoring facilities

FY02 Request: $1,055,449

3 YR Estimate: $2,564,551

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. This is a good proposal, well justified, and provides good

supporting background. The investigators propose to install weirs to quantify adult

abundance of adult steelhead, obtain demographic data, and collect tissues to analyze

genetic stock structure of steelhead in Imnaha River tributaries. The work is an important

component of steelhead population monitoring.

A response is needed to address the following issues:

1) A justification for placing weirs on every tributary is needed. The proposal proposes to

place weirs in seven tributaries, plus Cow and Lightening Creeks funded under an

LSRCP project. The largest tributary (Big Sheep) and the mainstem Imnaha would be

included via radio-tracking of steelhead and use of a ratio estimator to determine the total

system escapement. However, given the cost and logistical challenges of maintaining

nine weirs, why is it necessary to weir each stream? The ratio estimator (assuming that

adequate numbers of tags can be applied, 200 proposed) could give an accurate estimate

of the total escapement even if only one tributary could be reliably enumerated (as the

extreme example). Did you consider a random sample of streams in which to place weirs

or a rotating sample of streams between years?

2) To estimate recruits per spawner (and assuming that spawners will now be accurately

estimated) a comparable accurate estimate of the recruits is needed. How are recruits to

be defined and estimated?
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

114

3) The proposal does not provide any comment on collection of biological sampling data

on spawners (sex, age, size, etc.). Who is responsible for these data and what will be

collected?

4) The distribution of redds by tributary in recent years should be provided in response.

5) The investigators need to provide a more detailed description of how population

abundance will be estimated in tributaries not surveyed directly with weirs. 

Grande Ronde

Project ID: 199608000

NE Oregon Wildlife Mitigation Project -- "Precious Lands"

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Continue operation of the NE Oregon Wildlife Mitigation Project --

"Precious Lands" to protect, restore, and enhance canyon grassland habitats and

associated riparian and forest communities to benefit fish and wildlife.

FY02 Request: $439,803

3 YR Estimate: $1,279,903

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. Reviewers have previously noted that the project should provide a

management plan that states targets, provides rationale for actions to meet these targets,

and provides for evaluation of actions. This plan still has not been provided, and its

absence generates many problems for evaluating the scientific soundness of the proposed

management expenditures. The presentation addressed many questions that the proposal

did not address, but much more specific detail is needed, as described below. The project

personnel appear to be very well qualified.

The glaring problem with the proposal is the lack of a long-term management plan, which

is still not complete after 5 years of project operation. The presentation indicated that the

management plan is about 2/3 complete and will be ready for review in Fall 2001, but the

objectives of the current proposal should be established in reference to the management

objectives. How will the wildlife management objectives for this land be developed? Will

objectives for fish be included?

Further, the description of monitoring is sketchy. The proposal is much improved over

previous submissions, and does present a good general discussion of monitoring

approaches/techniques with emphasis on target species. However, the monitoring and

evaluation should be done in reference to a set of measurable objectives that will

determine what data are needed. The monitoring should include a strong aquatic

component because of the presence of Joseph Creek. Will cultural components be

included in monitoring? The cost of monitoring birds seems unreasonably high and

annual HEP surveys are not likely needed.

The review group also suggests that future terrestrial monitoring efforts be made

compatible with one of the national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of

the National Resources Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

115

the region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews in the

Columbia Plateau.

The absence of specific objectives leads to a very habitat based approach, rather than a

series of habitat actions taken to achieve specified objectives in terms of wildlife

quantity, composition, and density. It involves the control of noxious weeds, replanting of

damaged riparian areas, conversion of cultivated lands to native species, exclusion

fencing for livestock, increasing law enforcement, maintain living facilities, upgrading

office facilities. No information is provided on specific methods to be used (e.g.

restoration of agricultural lands). Methods are referenced as being in the Precious Lands

Area Management Plan, but, this is still “in preparation” and thus unavailable to

reviewers. The apparently extensive noxious weed control project (as judged by its high

line-item cost) is still a concern to reviewers and requires explanation/justification. A fire

suppression plan and an integrated weed control program are still “to be developed.” The

term “adaptive management” is used to describe the fire and weed programs that will be

developed, but no specifics are given as to when and how this will be done.

The proposal adds an enforcement component in response to thefts and vandalism in the

past year and to enforce road closures and educate public. This seems reasonable.

The question of whether maintaining access roads and facilities is beneficial for fish and

wildlife has been addressed in terms of personnel access to restoration projects.

Justification of a full time site manager is not given.

The travel cost continues to appear high. Although some explanation of the cost of onsite work is provided, the large amount of on-site work is not explained or itemized.

The proposers should explain the request for funds to upgrade the NPT offices to be

handicapped compliant. This type of expenditure would normally be included in indirect

costs.

Project ID: 27023

Precious Lands Wildlife Habitat Expansion

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Expand the operation of the NE Oregon Wildlife Mitigation Project -

- "Precious Lands" to protect, restore, and enhance up to 16,500 acres of additional

grassland, riparian and ponderosa pine habitat to benefit fish and wildlife.

FY02 Request: $3,373,974

3 YR Estimate: $10,151,474

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Fundable. The acquisition activities are well justified. A response is not needed. The

procedures and priorities for land purchase are well justified, as is the choice of canyon

grassland as target habitat to acquire. Longer-term funding for management should

follow provision of reviewed and approved management plan that includes M&E.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

116

This is the acquisition component of the wildlife proposal above. It is for funding to

double the area for wildlife habitat. The target habitat is canyon grassland and the area

targeted for acquisition encompasses all the quality canyon grassland habitat in the Blue

Mt province. The process of prioritizing potential purchase parcels was not described in

the proposal but was described in the presentation. It would consist of an identification of

available parcels, an evaluation of habitat values (riparian, wetlands, 303d listed streams,

number of listed species present, ponderosa pine communities and canyon grasslands

preferred), ecological condition and restorability, consideration of the size of the parcel,

and assessment of the relationship to other conservation areas, economic value. A thirdparty appraisal would be conducted. The Council’s program includes a Land and Water

Acquisition, how would this project fit in?

The project proposes over the long run to improve land use practices, restore degraded

communities, protect and enhance habitat values, monitor and evaluate management

practices, and provide habitat quality for wildlife. As with the proposal above, these

longer-term management goals and actions are not yet well-justified in terms of science,

as concrete and detailed management plans and objectives are yet to be completed.

According to the presentation, a management plan would specify the desired outcomes

and include measurable objectives for species composition. How will these objectives be

derived? Some economic uses of this land may be allowed, but no specifics were given.

These should be included in the management plan and the management plan should itself

be subject to outside scientific review.

The review group suggests that future terrestrial monitoring efforts be made compatible

with one of the national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of the

National Resources Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve the

region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews in the

Columbia Plateau.

Project ID: 200002100

Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Ladd Marsh WMA Additions

Sponsor: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Protect and restore wetland and riparian habitats on parcels acquired

and added to the Ladd Marsh Wildlife Area.

FY02 Request: $193,185

3 YR Estimate: $658,685

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. The proposed purchases are justified to extend the wetland, and the

property is of high priority to migrating waterfowl. The restored wetlands will use treated

wastewater from the City of La Grande, a practice in place on a smaller scale since the

early 1990s. The project is clearly significant to regional programs, and well tied in with

other projects. An extensive project history is provided that illustrates the collaboration

among various entities to acquire contiguous lands and restore them as wetlands. This

project is clearly tied to wildlife mitigation goals and to limiting water quality and

quantity factors in the Grande Ronde Subbasin. The technical background of the proposal
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

117

gives a good justification of the value of the restoring more of the historic wetlands,

which once exceeded 20,000 acres as Tule Lake. Ladd Marsh has been identified as a

priority restoration site by many different planning efforts.

However, the proposal still fails to address the previously noted scientific deficiency that

the management plan, especially the M and E component, needs to be better described.

Sequential restoration goals are provided. Objective 4 refers to a five-year management

plan that is in existence and will be amended with the addition of the new properties.

Details of this management plan including the plan for monitoring and evaluation are not

included in the proposal, and should be submitted in the response to this review.

The review group also suggests that future terrestrial monitoring efforts be made

compatible with one of the national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of

the National Resources Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve

the region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews in the

Columbia Plateau.

Project ID: 27020

Grande Ronde Subbasin Water Right Acquisition Program

Sponsor: Oregon Water Trust

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Acquire 3 cfs of existing Grande Ronde Subbasin water rights on a

voluntary basis and transfer to instream water rights under Oregon state law; target

acquisitions to maximize fulfillment of habitat objectives for instream flows.

FY02 Request: $62,620

3 YR Estimate: $205,322

Preliminary ISRP Review Comments:

A response is needed. This proposal is for funding to assist with the acquisition of water

rights in the Grande Ronde Subbasin. Previous work was funded under a Columbia

Basin-wide project. This is the first proposal submitted by OWT for Grande Ronde work

under the separate subbasin structure.

The project goal is to acquire relatively small amounts of water that significantly impact

flow in tributary habitats. The proposal is to acquire senior water rights for conversion to

in-stream use. Small to medium landowners with livestock operations (where alternatives

to irrigation-grown feed can be purchased) are the target sellers. OWT would work with

OWRD to ensure that protectable rights are purchased, and with ODFW to ensure that the

additional water results in demonstrable ecological benefits.

The goal is to acquire 3 cfs over a three-year period. A cost estimate is provided for each

cfs ($60k). OWT requests funds for 2/3 of the costs of water rights acquisitions.

Inadequate flows in small streams and tributaries are identified as a major limiting factor

for fish habitat. The technical background is excellent, and a convincing case is made for

the rationale and significance of this project to regional programs. Objectives are

systematically presented with associated tasks and methods. Methods for most tasks are
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

118

described in adequate detail. However, more detail could be provided on the economic

evaluation (Task 1.c) and how it will be conducted. How will evaluation of permanent

transfers differ from that done for temporary leases?

In the presentation it was indicated that economic valuation of water rights is done to

establish parameters for negotiation with landowner. If a short-term lease is being

negotiated, the value of water to a landowner is assessed through a crop enterprise

budget. If it is a permanent transfer, the value of water to the land is assessed in terms of

the difference in sale prices of comparable land with and without water rights. Details of

this approach should be presented in the proposal.

Monitoring and evaluation are included not only for the rights acquisition but also for the

ecological impact of the increased in-stream flow. Cooperative monitoring of

conservation impacts with tribes and state agencies is planned. More detail needs to be

provided on monitoring methods. Although the OWT does not conduct the monitoring,

they need to demonstrate that someone (ODFW, OWRD or the tribes) is assessing the

biological impact on fish of the additional water. Impacts will likely need to be monitored

in the aggregate.

The project has the potential to directly address problems of stream flow and temperature,

but can such small increments of cfs can make an effective difference? What is the

strategy for ensuring that they do? What is the evidence that the seemingly small flows

being acquired (e.g., 0.09 cfs) will be of significant benefit in terms of the biology of the

fish? The question is whether it is better to fragment available funds to get small cfs in

many areas or to purchase a larger number of cfs in a smaller number of areas.

The response should indicate how the additional water will affect the flow regimes of the

streams as they relate to the life cycles of the fishes and other organisms. What are the

critical periods in the yearly cycle of natural fish production in the particular stream, and

how will the added flow ameliorate limiting conditions?

A larger question that should be addressed by a future project pertains to the cumulative

effect of these water right acquisitions on the ecological productivity of the streams and

also on the pattern of riparian land use. For example, will changing the ownership of

water rights appurtenant to the land create an incentive to take land out of agriculture and

into an alternative use, such as housing?

Fifteenmile Creek might be a good demonstration site for this type of assessment.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

119

Project ID: 198402500

GRANDE RONDE BASIN FISH HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROJECT

Sponsor: ODFW

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Protect and enhance fish habitat in selected streams on private lands

in the Grande Ronde Basin to improve instream and riparian habitat diversity, and

increase natural production of wild salmonids.

FY02 Request: $456,416

3 YR Estimate: $1,438,850

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. This proposal is to continue work on a 15 year old project that

includes 40 individual habitat enhancement projects.

The technical background provided in the proposal is again excellent, providing good

explanation of the problems and the choice of approaches to address those problems. The

project has strong ties with other projects. The project history is thorough and includes

summaries of monitoring results. In response to earlier ISRP comments, some evaluation

of results is also presented. The examples of monitoring are limited by the types of data

presented (i.e., max and min values), but the data have apparently been collected.

Reference is also made to more extensive evaluations in preparation. The discussion of

project results and evaluation provides detail on methods to be used to meet the 7

objectives. New monitoring is also described. The adaptive management implications

section is quite a good discussion of approaches taken and modified after evaluating

results. However, inconsistencies between the proposal and presentation should be

reconciled. Although the monitoring plan presented in the proposal is adequate, the

responses made during the presentation to questions about monitoring raised questions as

to whether monitoring, and especially evaluation, is actually being done.

The program has clearly accomplished many habitat and stream restoration activities.

Photographs of restoration results illustrated that, with respect to approach and technique,

much, perhaps most, of this project’s restoration work is of the passive sort that the ISRP

has recommended—removing human abuses and enabling the natural system to restore

normative functions. The ISRP recommendations in FY00 called for M&E, and the FY02

proposal responds with am M&E plan but does not present M&E results, leaving the

reviewers to question whether M&E was done in FY00-01. Results should be

summarized quantitatively in tables and graphs in the FY02 proposal’s project history.

This is a long-standing project that is not providing a quantitative summary of biological

or physical results. Data collection and analysis have been a minor component of this

project and continue to lack the emphasis they warrant. However, projects that have been

funded since 1984 owe it to the region to provide rigorous internal evaluation of the

efficacy of actions in order to understand if the assumptions driving the actions are

correct. After so many years and so many projects (BPA funded and otherwise), it is

critical that this project demonstrate physical and biological changes. It is time to

provide an evaluation of the habitat restoration work.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

120

During the presentation the PI’s response to the need for and role of monitoring was

candid but disturbing. He noted that monitoring was cumbersome and done primarily to

appease the ISRP for the purpose of continuing funding. This reflects a serious

misunderstanding of the role of monitoring, which is the primary tool for adaptive

management – learning and providing course corrections to an ongoing program. The PI

noted that he was certain that they were doing good things for streams and habitat – he

and the landowners could see the results with their own eyes – therefore, it wasn’t

necessary or even desirable to collect “reams of data” to verify this. Many of the

biologists in the basin appear to have an unvalidated belief in the Rosgen method as the

vehicle for achieving the desired stream conditions in the subbasin. This may prove to be

warranted, but it should be critically examined.

The history of fisheries management is replete with well-intentioned, but scientifically

unsound practices that people thought were good things to do (e.g., rip-rapping stream

banks for stability, channelizing streams for flood protection, eradicating bull trout,

widespread outplanting of fry in the early years of the hatchery programs and the

wholesale transfer of lower Columbia River chinook into the upper Columbia River).

This looks like a good program that has made significant contributions to stream habitat

improvements. Such programs are very important, and longer-lived ones like this one can

succeed in bringing in many local landowners as cooperators. It is important that this

work continue. Nevertheless, the program has reached a point where it is mandatory that

it be critically evaluated. The PI does not appear to understand the role of and need for

M & E, and its role as a guiding and correcting principle in the FWP. How much

technical support is available to the PI for the M&E work? Part of the written agreements

with landowners is that ODFW will continue long-term monitoring of these projects.

What will be the extent of this monitoring?

If the project is to be funded, it is critical that outside assistance be made available to the

PI (either through ODFW or perhaps through OSU) to compile, review, analyze, and

publish the results of program in stream habitat restoration. An individual with strong

quantitative skills should be dedicated fulltime to analysis of the past 15 years’

monitoring data. The results of this analysis should be clearly and comprehensively

presented in the next proposal.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

121

Project ID: 199202601

Implement the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program Administration and Habitat

Restoration Projects

Sponsor: Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Continue the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program

Administration and Habitat Restoration. Develop and oversee coordinated, sustainable

resource management in the Grande Ronde Subbasin. Plan, design and implement

salmonid habitat restoration projects.

FY02 Request: $1,376,000

3 YR Estimate: $5,088,000

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. The proposal did not adequately address previous ISRP review

comments. In FY00 the ISRP recommended that subsequent funding be contingent on the

provision of more complete information and evaluation. The 9 year-old project has a

large budget ($1.4 million) but presents almost no evaluation of performance.

Specifically, results in terms of biological and physical attributes are not adequately

provided.

The ISRP also recommended in FY00 that continued funding should be contingent on the

provision of a better description of the results of post-project monitoring, a formal

evaluation of the cumulative effects of all watershed council activities, an overall

evaluation plan, and an evaluation of the effectiveness of and rationale for such

treatments as noxious weed control and tree density manipulation. In response, this

proposal provides a very short description of project achievements over the past 5 years

and a brief reference to effectiveness monitoring. No detail on the monitoring is

provided. Effectiveness is evaluated as “visible on-the-ground success.” This is an

insufficient response to FY00 review comments. The project’s 8 years of results should

be presented in terms of measured responses in species and habitats.

Additionally, the tasks presented under the 8 objectives for FY02 are completely absent

of methods specific to those tasks. The short description of general methods provides

insufficient detail to review; technical detail on methods should be provided. The future

restoration projects and the criteria for selecting projects are not adequately defined. For

example, how are rock barbs and vortex weirs expected to reduce sedimentation? How

would manipulating tree density affect fish and wildlife? While the ISRP tour and

briefings indicated that these proponents are well organized and enthusiastic, this

proposal lacks the detail necessary for support. At present, the proposal seeks a million

dollars without any specific projects or priorities identified. Further, the M&E

component (tasks 1 and 2) are vague and must be very limited given the budget

requested.

The proposal refers to the structured process the GRMWP has developed for project

solicitation and implementation, to the thorough internal review process used by

GRMWP for implementation, to “individual monitoring plans” that each project will

have, and to the fact that O&M of each project is the responsibility of each PI. More

detail on each of these processes should be presented. The response is effectively saying
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

122

that review of projects takes place outside the FWP process. Project results are expressed

in terms of number of projects completed rather than in quantitative indicators of

watershed improvement.

In contrast, the site visit provided a more favorable picture of project implementation

under the GRMWP. The team visited a wide variety of riparian restoration projects that

represent an excellent leveraging of BPA funds. The project has an impressive amount of

cost-share and coordination; overall, the costs are shared at about 50:50.

All projects appear to have some level of effectiveness monitoring, and there are basinwide stream inventories and a water quality monitoring program. The hiring of a water

quality coordinator is planned, after which some projects will be selected for intensive

monitoring of water quality and other indicators on watershed health. Additionally, the

GRMWP appears to have formed extremely effective working relationships with a wide

range of subbasin interests.

Evaluative information on the projects and process used by the GRMWP should be

presented in the proposal, not only for performance review purposes but also for internal

evaluation and educational demonstration of this model watershed program. This project

is a “model” watershed program and should lead by completion of a more informative

proposal that would demonstrate gains from past investments and work. The GRMWP

and other entities would benefit from a more formal evaluation of restoration progress.

1. Project ID: 199403900

Watershed Restoration Planner

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Act as the liaison between the Nez Perce Tribe and Wallowa County.

Help coordinate watershed restoration efforts in Wallowa County between the Tribe,

County, Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program, local landowners, and state and

federal agencies.

FY02 Request: $64,289

3 YR Estimate: $202,670

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A combined response with project 199702500 is needed. This proposal requests

continuing funding for a liaison to function as a planner and coordinator for the NPT’s

involvement in the Wallowa County and Grande Ronde Watershed plans. Last year the

ISRP recommended that the planner should be funded as part of a proposal for the work

to be done under proposal 199702500. The planner remains a separate proposal for the

purposes of indirect cost savings on project 199702500.

Some measures of performance are provided to demonstrate the efficacy of the position.

The coordinator appears to be performing a useful function, and there are some attempts

to provide outcomes in the proposal. Objective 6 is a hatchery activity. Why is this task

contained within a watershed project?
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

123

This proposal and 199702500 (requesting funds for the coordinator to encourage desired

actions) do not present material needed to support a scientific review. The site visit

provided some examples of past actions funded by the planner, but the proposal provides

little detailed rationale for projects and assessment of outcomes. The material provided in

both proposals is what one might use in a personnel description or evaluation, but it is not

what is needed to judge the scientific value of the work. Obviously great detail cannot be

presented on each of many small actions; however, an overall plan for targeted

improvements, along with strategies for prioritizing and implementing them, and some

evaluative outcome assessment should be presented. A response is needed to provide this

sort of information for evaluation.

2. Project ID: 199702500

Implement The Wallowa County/Nez Perce Tribe Salmon Habitat Recovery Plan

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Maintenance and/or restoration of salmon habitat through

cooperative and voluntary methods is a stated goal in the Wallowa County/Nez Perce

Tribe Salmon Habitat Recovery Plan. Funding of this project will help to implement the

Plan.

FY02 Request: $45,675

3 YR Estimate: $132,025

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A combined response with project 199403900 is needed. The response should address

issues from the FY00 review.

This project is operated through the County for the purposes of a lower (5%) indirect

cost assessment. Funds under this project are used for small opportunistic grants to

landowners to reconcile the different funding cycles of OWEB and BPA. According to

the presentation, the landowner contributes a minimum of 25% to projects as cost-share.

The project will change direction in 2001 by putting more emphasis on selected

watersheds, provide up-front money for project development, (survey work, engineering

design), install stream gages, and continue to find small projects that fall outside the

normal funding cycle. The proposal should provide information about how funds were

allocated in the past year and the level of cost share received in each project.

Overall, the project seems like an effective leveraging of different sources of money for

small projects that have a measurable impact. However, The proposal as it stands is not

amenable to scientific review. The response should develop technical justification for the

methods used, better describe how projects are prioritized and selected, and develop a

better comprehensive evaluation procedure.

There are opportunities for monitoring in these small projects that would generate useful

information. For example, the presentation included a description of Prairie Creek that

formerly had a gravel bottom but now has a mud bottom. Habitat monitoring is planned

for this project but no biological monitoring is planned. Biological monitoring should
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

124

also be done from the project inception in order to track the level of changes over time, as

the stream bottom changes from mud to gravel, and as erosion sources are fixed. Baseline

information will allow a comparison to later changes. Restoration of these deeply eroded

banks in projects in other subbasins has tended to be very aggressive. Such active

restoration projects can be extremely expensive. Is it possible for small monies and

efforts to reclaim Prairie Creek?

With regard to Prairie Creek, there seems to be over-concern about high, bare-soil stream

banks at the outsides of meander bends. They are undoubtedly the source of some fine

sediment, but much more probably comes from overland runoff. The banks will heal

naturally if given the chance. Rather than fighting streambank erosion directly (as was

implied in the presentation), the project should concentrate on removing humangenerated disturbances of the watershed and riparian area, and should let the stream

migrate at will within a revegetated riparian zone—a process in which some high, bare

banks will persist, and some new ones may be created, although the total amount of

rapidly eroding bank will undoubtedly decline markedly in the long run via natural

vegetative healing. The channel-narrowing effect of riparian vegetation will, within a few

years, concentrate current so as to scour away the mud described as now inundating

streambed gravel. The project could benefit by guidance from a genuine fluvial

geomorphologist. It shouldn’t rely on ideas that non-geomorphologists pick up at

shortcourses.

Project ID: 199608300

CTUIR Grande Ronde Subbasin Restoration

Sponsor: Confederated Tribes Umatilla Indian Reservation

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Protect, enhance, and restore riparian, floodplain, and instream

habitat to benefit anadromous fish.

FY02 Request: $200,000

3 YR Estimate: $585,000

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Fundable. A response is not needed. This project to restore McCoy meadow and relocate

the creek from a straight ditch into a former natural, meandering course began in 1996.

Passive restoration is emphasized. The proposal is thorough, detailed, and clearly written.

It contains excellent scientific/technical background and excellent project history.

The project area lies in the ceded territory of CTUIR. The CTUIR is a participant in the

GRMWP. Besides channel relocation, activities include placing large woody debris,

planting riparian vegetation, and replacing culverts (in at least one place with a bridge.

Projects with landowners are trying to focus on key life history areas for fish such as

over-wintering rearing habitat and spawning areas. Data on water temperature and fish

populations are presented.

The descriptions of tasks and of methods used to achieve the objectives are a bit general

and could have more information on how specifically the objectives will be met, and how

success or failure to meet them will be assessed. A description of the type of monitoring
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

125

and evaluation that is done, and of results to date is presented, but the relative progress

toward achieving the biological objectives is not described.

Overall, this is a strong proposal with competent staff.

Project ID: 27012

Restore and Enhance Grande Ronde Valley Deciduous Riparian Habitat

Sponsor: Oregon Department Fish and Wildlife

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Protect, restore and enhance deciduous riparian habitat adjacent to

the Grande Ronde River and its tributaries in the Grande Ronde Valley

FY02 Request: $156,000

3 YR Estimate: $551,000

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. More detail is need on the methods. This is a proposal to establish

cooperative arrangements with Grande Ronde riparian owners to set up long-term

easements for protection and enhancement of riparian habitat. Habitat emphasis is on

birds and juvenile Chinook and steelhead.

The technical background is excellent, providing detail on context for this project, and

putting the problem of riparian habitat protection in perspective. It discusses riparian

mitigation priorities in the context of several subbasin planning and watershed

assessment documents. The rationale for the project is embedded in this technical

background section. The proposal provides a long list of projects to which it would be

related.

Despite this good beginning, the proposal gets a little vague beginning with the goals and

objectives. The proposal lists general goals that the project will help achieve: are these

taken directly from the Grande Ronde Subbasin summary or are these goals specific to

this project? Below the list of goals, the proposal contains lists of actions to be taken

under various categories: again, are these tasks for this project or actions listed in the

Subbasin Summary?

Objectives and tasks are listed, but without any detail. There is no explanation of

methods, e.g., as to how habitat will be restored once easements are signed, or what

information will be acquired to provide the NEPA analysis. No explanation of methods

for weed control, buffer management, bird surveys, stock assessment are given beyond

“write the subcontract” to have the activity performed. With regard to M&E, the

methods for Task 1a and for Objectives 2 and 3 are missing.

The idea of reconnecting old river oxbows is particularly laudable from the standpoint of

regaining fish and wildlife habitat. However, arrangements with landowners for this

could be very difficult, and the physical work could be complicated. What method(s) will

be used to relocate the channel?

There appear to be good working relationships with landowners in the valley.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

126

The review group suggests that future terrestrial monitoring efforts be made compatible

with one of the national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of the

National Resources Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve the

region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews in the

Columbia Plateau.

Project ID: 27013

Grande Ronde River Stream Restoration - La Grande, Oregon

Sponsor: Union County and Union Soil and Water Conservation District

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Improve fish passage and habitat through the replacement of the

headgate structure, establish rock cross vane structures, rock weirs, fill and stabilize scour

pool improving habitat, stream bank stabilization and large woody debris placement.

FY02 Request: $816,080

3 YR Estimate: $841,080

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response is needed. The project is planned to further modify a Grande Ronde River

reach that the Corps of Engineers straightened in 1959 on the outskirts of the town of La

Grande. The primary intent of the proposal is to forestall channel headcutting that

threatens to undermine a bridge and irrigation ditch diversion. However, the proposal and

the project plan embodied in its “Ecosystem Report and Environmental Assessment”

(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District, Nov. 1999 [COE report]) portray

the project primarily as fish habitat improvement. This project fails to remedy the

problem’s cause, the channel straightening, and is not clearly focused on fish benefits.

The benefits to fish appear minimal compared with what could be done for that resource.

In fact, the project, as now planned, would perpetuate various features of the present

channel that adversely affect fish habitat.

The proposal references no biological or ecological literature (primary or otherwise) in

support of this plan to purportedly improve habitat for fish and wildlife, particularly for

bull trout migration. No biologist is shown among project personnel. The COE report has

an Appendix C on “Biological Assessment” for which the only literature referenced is a

paper a parasite of chinook salmon, the NMFS 1995 proposed recovery plan for Snake

River salmon, and a 1998 Oregon reference on a plant, the Ute ladies’ tress. The latter

source was not listed in the “References Cited” section of Appendix C, although six other

literature items did appear on that list—but were not shown not in the text. Among those

six items, listed as “cited” but actually not referenced, were two well-known papers on

bull trout life history and ecology (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Rieman and McIntyre

1993). Strangely, the COE report’s Appendix A on “Fisheries Criteria for the headcut

Stabilization Design” states: “Very little is known about the life history and habits of bull

trout,” at which point no literature is referenced. These referencing deficiencies and

wording indicate that the COE report’s sections on fish are based almost purely on rough

professional judgement rather than available science.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

127

Because an expanse of land devoid of residences or other buildings exists on each side of

the stream, there is ample lateral space to create a lower flood plain and to re-meander the

stream within a well-vegetated riparian zone (the irrigation ditch along the right bank

could be relocated). Creating a significant meander corridor would result in a much more

natural restoration and far more habitat for fish and wildlife. Neither the proposal nor the

COE report considers this alternative, therefore, the proposal is inadequate. The only

action alternatives described are further (primarily hard structure) engineering of the

present artificially straightened course. These would all result in a rigidly stabilized

channel bearing little resemblance to naturally productive habitat for salmonids.

The COE report states (p. 1-1) that the project is to be done under Section 1135 of the

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 “to modify the structure and operation of

water resource projects to improve the quality of the environment in the public interest.”

Under the heading, Purpose, it emphasizes the goal of meeting “specific habitat needs”

of 3 ESA-listed fishes (p. 1-1); says the “intent of this project is to implement measures

that would help restore a migration corridor and rearing habitat for fish, enhance riparian

vegetation, and stabilize the river channel and its banks” (p. 2-1); and explains that in a

headcut section the primary goal is fish passage improvement, and that in a downstream

section the primary goals is to improve winter holding and rearing habitat (p. 2-1). The

objectives of protecting the bridge and irrigation ditch are not mentioned in the purpose

section. They are at least alluded to elsewhere in the COE report, but not prominently.

The major fish habitat need cited in the COE report is to provide passage for salmonids.

However, at present, the headcut area envisaged for alteration presents no more of a

challenge to salmonids that need to migrate upstream than do rapids and falls that

salmonids normally surmount elsewhere. In the oral presentation and COE report, it was

stated or implied that the channel must be altered to permit upstream passage of juvenile

bull trout, the weakest swimmers among the system’s salmonids. This asserted need was

not substantiated and is not consistent with the life history of that species. The migratory

(fluvial) bull trout mature in the Snake River (perhaps also the Grande Ronde’s lower

reaches), swim upstream past the headcut as adults to spawn in upper parts of the system,

and return downstream. After rearing near and below the headwaters, juveniles move

downstream; some may disperse into various parts of the river system (pers. comm.

Bruce Rieman, US Forest Service) but in general the juveniles move toward the larger

rivers where they mature. They have no known need to swim upstream through the

headcut until spawning migration when they are large and can surmount such features.

Resident bull trout inhabit more upstream areas lifelong and need not pass the headcut.

Moreover, the COE report’s own analysis (Table 3-1, p. 3-13) showed that the present

probability of upstream passage for juvenile bull trout is 50 percent; this indicates that,

although no juveniles need to pass, about half of them probably could—and that positive

selective pressure would operate on the population if any of the young fish did have good

reason to try the challenge. Clearly, no need exists here for better than present fish

passage.

The proposal conveys a misimpression that urban development constricts the corridor

available for restoration of a proper flood plain and meandering stream. The proposal
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

128

says: “Residential development has intensified on both sides of the river channel,

reducing the tolerance for channel meanders and out-of-channel flooding.” Site

inspection reveals, however, that residences, though sometimes within sight of the bank,

are few and are set back many yards from the river. The proposal fails to accurately

describe the river as bordered by wide areas of relatively undeveloped land.

Under geomorphologic problems, the proposal lists “atypical river parameters” as a

category and shows “high width/depth ratio; high raw, vertical banks” as the items

involved. Lack of normal meandering should also be included under this category.

The proposal’s objective, “Provide for a Consolidated Low Flow Channel,” has as its

task: “Channel alignment and geometry have been designed to result in a narrower,

deeper, and more meandering channel within the present river corridor.” Though not truly

in the form of a task statement, this implies that the project would create a more

meandering channel. Drawings for the “recommended alternative” plan in the COE report

indicate that little, if any, additional meandering would be created.

Another objective is “Address Annual Gravel Removal Done in Lower Section of Project

Reach.” Its “task” says: “Annual gravel bar scalping will only occur where recruitment

warrants protection for stream restoration features.” The purpose of gravel removal and

why any should be permitted in the stream or its riparian zone should be explained.

Scientific documentation for fish habitat aspects of the COE report’s designed channel

and its artificial structures are lacking, hence also in the proposal.

The proposal states that “The Corp [sic] of Engineers have contracted with Lee Silvies to

design the proposed facilities to replicate a more natural condition within the project

reach,” and that this “experienced hydrologic engineer, will provide on-site direction for

structure construction and placement.” However, Lee Silvies is not found in proposal

Sect. 10, Key Personnel, and nowhere in the proposal are his or her education and other

qualifications presented.

The proposal mentions no watershed assessment.

The proposal indicates that design was not completed before the proposal was submitted:

“The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and local sponsors . . . will complete a Design and

Specifications document within the next two months for the proposed project.”
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

129

Project ID: 27008

Grande Ronde River Riparian Restoration

Sponsor: Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Vale District Office,

Baker Field Office

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Enhance and restore riparian and native vegetation along the

Wallowa and Grande Ronde Rivers to reduce sedimentation and improve riparian and

instream habitat. Map of general project area is included under the narrative.

FY02 Request: $307,730

3 YR Estimate: $768,020

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. The work may be fundable, but the proposed actions do not appear

to be of high priority. The land being considered for restoration does not appear to be in

need of immediate active remedial action.

This proposal is to perform riparian restoration on land acquired by the BLM in 1993.

Good background is provided as to the common value of restoration of riparian areas.

The BLM wants to control noxious weeds, establish native species, fence riparian areas,

and continue maintenance of existing exclosures on this land. Both the Grande Ronde and

Wallowa Rivers are on the 303d list for various factors. The presentation gave numbers

of conifers, grasses and shrubs planted. Noxious weed treatments, riparian fencing, and

large woody debris placement were also described. Monitoring was described in terms of

seedling survival, seedling protection, noxious weed control, weed seeding termination

and large woody debris, but a monitoring plan is not yet in place and most monitoring

methods are listed without adequate detail. It is not clear whether monitoring includes

any attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of active measures versus that of simple

protection of land and allowance of passive restoration. The rationale and significance to

the FWP are clear. However, the goals and objectives are confused. Two of the three

listed objectives are actually tasks. Actions listed as “specific projects goals” are also

tasks.

Given that this is BLM land purchased with the intent of restoration, and that BLM has

already been conducting some of the restoration activities, including some of the NEPA

EA work, why should this be a matter of BPA rather than BLM funding?

The review group also suggests that future terrestrial monitoring efforts be made

compatible with one of the national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of

the National Resources Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve

the region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews in the

Columbia Plateau.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

130

Project ID: 27011

Lookingglass Creek land purchase for watershed protection (spawning and rearing habitat

continuity and water quality at Lookingglass Hatchery).

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Sponsor: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Short Description: Protect 2.5 miles of stream and riparian areas in Lookingglass Creek

to improve water quality and provide continuity of spawning and rearing areas for spring

chinook, summer steelhead, and bulltrout.

FY02 Request: $2,263,400

3 YR Estimate: $2,274,400

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. This proposal is to purchase an identified parcel of land along

Lookingglass Creek for the purpose of riparian protection. The relationship of this project

to other projects comes primarily through the issue of water supply to the Lookingglass

Hatchery. The Lookingglass Creek purchase is justified in terms of value to Lookingglass

Hatchery, and it could very well lead to benefit to fish and wildlife. Further, the area to be

acquired is in good condition and should require little if any active restoration. The

technical background of the proposal is brief and does not address whether there are any

alternatives to land purchase for riparian protection, why access on this parcel has been

limited, and whether fish habitat is an important limiting factor or only “seems to be.”

The proposal lists one objective, which is to protect and improve water quality and

provide habitat continuity between private and federally owned land. It lists four tasks,

none of which include any explanation of methods. The proposal leaves a number of

large questions unaddressed: How will the biological assessment be done? What

variables will be measured? How will the “desired future condition” be identified? How

will water monitoring be conducted? How will management alternatives be identified?

Further, the proposal does not present a clear plan for use of the purchased stream. The

proposal and presentation noted that Lookingglass Creek was a top production area for

chinook and that is was the installation and operation of Lookingglass Hatchery itself that

extirpated the upper creek populations. Without a comprehensive plan for restoration of

natural production in Lookingglass Creek, the purchase would seem to be of low

scientific priority. Further, the purchase price per acre is very high. The purchase needs to

be justified in the context of a plan for restoring salmonids of the Lookingglass basin.

The review group also suggests that future terrestrial monitoring efforts be made

compatible with one of the national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of

the National Resources Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve

the region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews in the

Columbia Plateau.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

131

Project ID: 27005

Increase CREP Enrollment and Enhance Riparian Protections in the Grande Ronde and

Imnaha basins

Sponsor: Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board

Subbasin: Grande Ronde and Imnaha

Short Description: This project will increase enrollment in the CREP program and

improve the program to add permanent protection to the restored riparian areas.

FY02 Request: $170,880

3 YR Estimate: $521,720

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. This proposal is brief and provides too little detail to evaluate the

need, the relationship to the FWP, or the methods. The presentation was helpful in

expanding on the basic idea and proposed actions, but a response must provide more

detail. For example, the abstract is a single sentence. The rationale to the FWP is not

well developed; the proposal describes some of the program environment but does not

provide rationale for the proposed work. Three objectives are provided, with very short

descriptions of methods under each. Under the 1st objective to “develop a permanent

protection mechanism”, it states that OWEB needs to develop an economic methodology

for acquiring permanent easements, but does not say what that methodology would look

like or how it would be developed. The proposal adds staff to 2 county SWCDs in order

to increase enrollment through the provision of technical assistance. The PIs need to

provide detail on methods of implementation.

Project ID: 27004

Grande Ronde and Imnaha Stream Channel Complexity and Fish Passage Barrier

Inventory, Prioritization and Remediation

Sponsor: Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board

Subbasin: Grande Ronde and Imnaha

Short Description: This project will complete an inventory of the channel simplification

of the Grande Ronde and Imnaha stream channel and inventory each fish passage barrier

in each basin. The data will be used to develop restoration priorities and early

implementation.

FY02 Request: $191,580

3 YR Estimate: $753,540

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. More detail on the prioritization methods and effort should be

provided.

This is a proposal to inventory stream channel simplification and fish passage barriers in

each basin, and to prioritize restoration activities. The conceptual basis of the project is

straightforward and logical.

The proposal provides very little technical background, although important primary

literature is referenced. The rationale is similarly sparse in detail. The objectives are

reasonable, but methods are lacking in detail. For example, what is the standard inventory
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

132

method for fish passage barriers developed by OPSW? Only a reference to “see websites”

is given in the proposal. Details on “other available data” should also be given.

The area in which the lack of detail about methods is most critical is in the development

of a prioritization strategy. How will basin characteristics be analyzed? How will the

significance of barriers to fish utilization of upstream habitat be evaluated? What are the

criteria for prioritization? Additionally, detail on how the prioritization process will be

coordinated with various interests should be given as well as a description of the M&E

that will be done and the methods that will be used.

Overall, the proposal provides too little detail to evaluate the proposed work in terms of

need, methods, or relationship to the FWP.

The prioritization process was described in the presentation. The focus will be on

historical range, access to productive habitat, and significance of the barrier.

The project would put staff in SWCDs to inventory streams in coordination with USFS

and other parties. Historical work will be contracted to the Or Natural Heritage

Foundation using railroad surveys as the primary documents. This is a methodology

similar to one used for coastal lowlands. Maps will be available through the State GIS

site.

A joint publication with FWS is planned. Willamette historical mapping is available now

through Oregon Natural Heritage Foundation on their website.

Project ID: 27018

Oregon Plan Blue Mountain Province Fish Screening/Fish Passage.

Sponsor: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Protect all species of fish by replacing 6 screening systems that do

not meet the NMFS design criteria.

FY02 Request: $153,314

3 YR Estimate: $153,314

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Fundable. A response is needed if proponents wish to adopt the ISRP’s suggestion that

the proposal be expanded to address the additional screens and their related O&M that

were discussed in the site review presentation. This proposal is for an excellent, practical

project with good (4X) cost share from NMFS and OWEB. It proposes to build 6 rotary

drum fish screens to replace temporary portable installations and in-place screens that do

not meet current NMFS screening criteria It represents ongoing work in the replacement

of screens.

The technical background provides an adequate explanation of the need for screen

replacement and work done to date. The project has significance to regional programs

and has clear connection to other recovery projects in the Grande Ronde Subbasin. The

objectives and task are appropriate to the work described. However, some of the project’s
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

133

objectives are expressed as activities (“ongoing construction and installation”) rather than

as intended outcomes, i.e., fish saved.

After the replacement of these 6 temporary fish screens, new fish screens will still be

needed in the Subbasin. It would seem reasonable to increase the budget of this project to

allow the fabrication shop to increase their production of screens to full capacity (15-20

per year), and to fund the personnel required for the maintenance of these screens. Why

isn’t the proposal asking for funding sufficient to upgrade passage at the diversions

remaining after the initial 6 are completed? If these other diversions interact with listed

steelhead and bull trout as the PI indicated, then they should also be addressed during this

project cycle rather than waiting to submit another proposal three years from now.

We learned during the presentation that funding for the operation and maintenance of

installed fish screens is limiting the full production of new screens. NMFS is currently

funding ODFW to monitor the performance of these screens once installed and to

maintain them in good working order, but is no longer funding the construction of new

screens. It is unlikely that the NMFS would fund the expanded maintenance requirements

associated with the installation of additional screens.

We recommend that the proposal be expanded to budget for screening all necessary

diversions and to support the FTEs needed for O&M.

Project ID: 27022

Wallowa County Culvert Inventory

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Prioritize on county, state, federal, and private land, culverts that

either need maintenance or replacement to meet resource needs.

FY02 Request: $170,603

3 YR Estimate: $548,619

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Fundable. A response to the ISRP is not necessary, but if funded ISRP concerns should

be addressed in the contracting process. This is a proposal to identify and prioritize

culverts that restrict fish passage or fragment habitat. In addition, some culverts carry a

risk of increased sedimentation due to washing of road fill into streams. An inventory of

tributary barriers is clearly important to regional programs.

Objectives and tasks are sparse in the proposal, although some attempt is made to

describe the methods used. The estimates of numbers of culverts to be surveyed aren’t

consistent with numbers given for the field period or the time taken for each survey. The

statement is made that it takes an average of 2 hours to survey a culvert, and that during

one field season (June to October) two crews can survey 400 culverts working 40 hour

weeks. At 2 hours per culvert, this is only a 10-week, rather than 16-week season. What

accounts for the time difference? Is it training and data entry?
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

134

Under Objective 6 (“breakdown of project information and peer review”), what kind of

peer review will be performed? The project should contain a better protocol for providing

the inventory to fish managers and the public. It should develop an information transfer

activity that is more proactive than doing presentations “upon request”.

Project ID: 199202604

Investigate Life History of Spring Chinook Salmon and Summer Steelhead in the Grande

Ronde River Basin and Monitor Salmonid Populations and Habitat

Sponsor: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Investigate the abundance, migration patterns, survival, and life

history strategies of spring chinook salmon and summer steelhead from distinct

populations and implement fish population and habitat monitoring in the Grande Ronde

and Imnaha River basins.

FY02 Request: $1,412,651

3 YR Estimate: $4,393,253

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. Objectives 1-11, which pertain to the ongoing research, is

fundable, but Objectives 12 (EMAP component) and 13 (Wallowa Lake Study) are new

work that has little direct scientific relationship to objectives 1-11. Objectives 12 and 13

each should be submitted as new projects.

The proposal fails to justify the need for Objective 12 and, in particular, why Objective

12.2 is necessary. It is unclear how the EMAP-based surveys directly support or

complement the early life history research that constitutes the bulk of the proposal. How

would these surveys differ from existing surveys and how does this work advance these

assessments? How would the EMAP-based surveys fit into a long-term, province scale

monitoring effort and how would this effort incorporate or build upon the ongoing early

life history studies. A clearly defined monitoring plan for salmon in the Blue Mountain

Province is necessary to provide context and justification the EMAP-based surveys.

Objective 13 is a worthwhile investigation. However, like objective 12, objective 13 has

no direct connection to the ongoing early life history studies and should be incorporated

into a new proposal. The issue at Wallowa Lake merits investigation. However, the goal

of Objective 13 needs to be clarified. Is this a study in sockeye re-introduction or a study

in kokanee assessment and restoration of the fishery? A general concern with this

extensive sampling program, however, could be the degree of handling and sampling that

occurs in these systems. Have the investigators considered how to maximize the

efficiency of this sampling and/or are they concerned about the impact of repeated

sampling of these fish. Are there ESA permit issues that should be considered? Further,

while the proposal is highly dependent upon the use of PIT tags and applies thousands of

them, there is not information on the determination of sample sizes or design used to

determine how many tags to apply. Is there a statistical basis for determination of the

number of tags released and fishes sampled, etc.? And finally, several times the text

refers to the principles of the Oregon Plan. If these principles are determining sampling
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

135

protocols and costs they should be described in the proposal and the proposed responses

related to these principles.

Objectives 1-11 provide a comprehensive evaluation of spring chinook salmon and

summer steelhead life-history variation. The proposal interacts with essentially all other

NEOH proposals and is well integrated with the co-managers. Previous research has

provided useful information on early life history diversity, egg-smolt survival, and smolt

survival to LGR. The investigators propose to expand the project to include studies of the

early life history of steelhead and an assessment of winter habitat for chinook. These

additions are reasonable and in line with the BiOp and the F&W Program.

The proposal should be modified to reflect recent changes in the direction of salmon

restoration within the Columbia Basin as indicated in the BiOP, the Basinwide Recovery

Strategy (the All H paper), and the F&W program. These changes in direction include a

greater emphasis on protection and restoration of tributary habitat. In support of this

effort, the proposal needs a stronger habitat component that directly addresses the

relationships of egg-smolt survival and early life history patterns to habitat conditions and

habitat change in Grande Ronde River tributaries, including an assessment of limiting

factors. The investigators should consider the following:

1. A project component that routinely assesses habitat conditions in all tributaries where

egg-smolt survival and early life history patterns are being investigated. The habitat

work proposed in objective 12 was not directly tied to specific habitat conditions in

the tributaries where the on-going biological data was being collected.

2. Clear objectives and methods for addressing limiting factors in freshwater.

3. Improved estimates of egg-smolt survival including incorporating information on age

structure of spawners in estimating egg deposition, more accurate redd counts, and

more accurate enumeration of returning adults. Currently adult abundance is

estimated from redd counts. There are numerous problems with this method.

4. Comparisons of habitat conditions and biological performance among tributaries and

among reaches within tributaries that differ in habitat quality.

5. Estimates of summer parr survival and its relationship to summer rearing conditions.

The budget should increase commensurate with the additional work. The

investigators also should consider an assessment of non-native species distribution

and abundance within the basin and interactions of non-native species and native

salmonids.

Given the multiple tasks described in this proposal, there are several questions that may

best be just listed for the author's consideration and response:

1) Objective 1 (page 15): the estimation of smolt numbers is an important

component of the research, but to estimate these numbers requires measures of

trap efficiency. There are no comments on how trap efficiency is measured, no

data on consistency of estimates or how they vary with flow, etc., and no method

presented on how the smolt numbers and variances are estimated.

2) Is there added value of the winter tagging in Objective 2 when tags have been

applied in the late summer under Objective 3?
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

136

3) Objective 5 requires adult spawner data as well as the data described under this

objective. How is the adult data collected and is the accuracy of that data

comparable to the juvenile data? Life stage survival estimates require both adult

and juvenile data.

4) Clarify the intention of Objective 6.2 (page 20). Are you actually sampling for

yearling resident chinook that do not mature sexually?

5) What are the dates of trapping for spring chinook and steelhead? Objective 7 for

steelhead seems identical to the objectives for chinook but the species are treated

separately and double the costs for trap sampling.

6) Task 7.4 (page 21) refers to "paint" marking but it is not clear what the role of this

mark is. Is paint marking just an avoidable mark used only for assess trap

efficiency?

7) The methods to be applied for Objectives 9 and 10 are not well described.

Further, it is not evident how the tasks described in Objective 10 actually address

the objective defined.

8) Objective 11 (winter concealment habitat) is strongly supported as a task but we

are uncertain that habitat characteristics should simply be defined in this way

without verification of these values within these actual environments. Reviewers

would strongly suggest some verification of the habitat definitions in the sample

sites and following the use of these habitats during the late fall transition period

when ice begins to form in these rivers.

Listing the publication of results could strengthen the proposal further.

Project ID: 27024

Life history strategies in Oncorhynchus mykiss: interactions between anadromous and

resident forms.

Sponsor: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: To aid in conservation efforts for O. mykiss and alternative

approaches within hatchery programs, evaluate the relationship between anadromous and

resident forms.

FY02 Request: $237,474

3 YR Estimate: $684,182

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. The presentation was more informative than the proposal. The

proposal lacks sufficient detail, particularly regarding justification of the methods,

sampling design for the field studies, and data analysis for all objectives. Some of these

details were covered in the presentation but also need to be in the proposal. There needs

to be a better justification for using Sr/Ca ratios in the otolith cores to identify the

environment of the mother, including citations and preliminary data from the Grande

Ronde. Data from the preliminary controlled breeding experiments needs to be

presented, including broodstock sizes, performance measures for assessing the

appearance of “smolt-like” conditions, and the number of progeny from various crosses

that were detected at the Snake River dams. A summary of the evidence that resident and
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

137

anadromous forms interbreed and the extent of interbreeding need to be included in the

proposal.

Objective 1: How will resident and anadromous forms be distinguished? What are the

locations, times, and methods for obtaining broodstock? What physiological and

morphological measures will be used to assess anadromy? Where will the progeny be

released and where will they be recaptured downstream during their migration to LGR? If

the pilot work has been conducted for a few years, why is it necessary to conduct three

more years of breeding experiments? What is the breeding design being used? Is it a

quantitative genetics design or a simpler ANOVA-style analysis? The quantitative

genetics design would be strongly recommended.

Objective 2: How will the “young of the year population” be distinguished from all other

O. mykiss? What are the locations, times, and methods of the sampling? What are the

sample sizes? How will the data be analyzed?

Objective 3: Needs to be greatly expanded. Task 3.1 may document occurrence of mature

O. mykiss in the fall but how does this relate to the stated Objective 3?

The investigators frequently use the term equilibrium but it is not clear how this would be

achieved (i.e., what mechanism) or why an equilibrium would still be expected in a

highly disturbed environment. An interesting example is included in the text. On page 2

(Section 9) the investigators report that recent returns of natural-origin anadromous adults

to a tributary in the Imnaha River have recently been 75% females. A third life history

strategy may be implied then, i.e., male residual steelhead trout. How would this strategy

be involved in this proposal?

This proposal is very similar to activities described in LSRCP project 200109 (ODFW),

the authors need to clarify if these are separate activities or where the pilot activities

referred to in this new proposal previously included in project 200109?

Project ID: 27019

Adult Salmon Abundance Monitoring

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe/Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Implement state-of-the-art technologies to accurately quantify

chinook salmon spawner abundance in the Minam River. Adult abundance data would

allow a measure of recovery threshold abundance of a listed species (NMFS 2000).

FY02 Request: $531,182

3 YR Estimate: $1,688,213

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

A response is needed. This is a strong and innovative proposal that would establish

quantitative annual monitoring of the spring chinook escapement to the Minam River.

The Minam River spring chinook population is the only Grande Ronde Subbasin stock

listed as an index population in the recent NMFS Biological Opinion. The proposal

provides good background and technical justifications but there are several questions that

the ISRP recommends a response:
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

138

1) Although the Minam River has been identified as an index site, the proposal provides

no background on the trends in chinook in the Minam or the data available on this

population. Are you confident that the numbers warrant this major investment?

Further, at the briefings, it was revealed that splash dam logging had occurred on the

Minam, which generates the question whether the stock and habitat in the Minam is

truly representative of other spring chinook populations?

2) (a) What is the advantage of the 4 independent systems. Is the benefit of the third or

fourth system worth the incremental cost and complexity? On what basis was this

design recommended? (b) What validation procedure would be implemented for both

the number of chinook estimated and the species composition of the fish counted? (c)

It is not evident in the proposal that the NPT has the technical/hydroacoustic expertise

in their staff. These instruments require constant attention and refinement. Does the

NPT anticipate recruiting these staff or are they included in this proposal?

3) The table on page 5, Section 9 provides a nice summary of methods but generates the

question about what determined the recommendation to use hydroacoustics. For

example, the resistivity systems would be less difficult to use but maybe limited by

the anticipated flow regimes. Further justification for the recommended system is

desirable.

4) To apply the information on spawning escapements, the NPT will also need

biological data on the returning adults. What program will provide that or should that

information be included in this proposal to ensure it is collected?

A final comment is that several organizations along the coast have implemented similar

hydroacoustic systems, although experience in river systems is more limited than in

lakes, etc. The NPT may consider forming (or contracting) a technical advisory group to

assist in software expertise, site preparation, etc. The investment in this new program

could be very worthwhile but the quality of the resulting data will be highly dependent on

the site selected and the environmental conditions expected.

Confusion is evident in the outline of objectives and tasks as represented in the proposal’s

budget sections. In Section 5, Budget for Construction/Implementation, Objective 2 and

its Tasks a, b, and c are planning/design matters and belong in Sect. 4. An Objective 3,

“Construct the apparatus” should be created in Section 5, and the former Task 2d should

remain with it and be renumbered. Also, the out-year items in Section 7, Budget for

M&E, should probably be moved to Section 6, as these are really operations. We realize

that the whole project is in effect monitoring project, but in such a case, monitoring

should be regarded as the operation, and only activities that evaluate the effectiveness of

the monitoring operation should be classed as M&E.

Council should simultaneously consider this proposal with the companion work proposed

in the Salmon River subbasin, proposal 199703000. The response should address

concerns from that proposal that apply here as well.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

139

Northeast Oregon Hatchery Program

Hatchery production in the Blue Mountain Province involves the Lower Snake River

Compensation Program and a program referred to as the Northeast Oregon Hatchery

program (NEOH). The latter program developed in the late 1980s since salmon returns

to local rivers continued to decline even following development of the LSRCP. Several

proposals reviewed by the ISRP address programs in the NEOH program and specifically

the production of spring chinook to supplement natural production in the Grande Ronde

River. To clarify the inter-relation of these proposals a brief history of the NEOH has

been extracted from project proposal #198805031 and a diagram prepared to summarize

the proposals involved (Figure 1). Currently there are no hatchery releases in the Asotin

watershed of the Blue Mountain province. LSRCP activities deal with fall chinook in the

Snake River, and steelhead in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde rivers, and contributed to

rearing and monitoring components of the Grande Ronde programs.

Section 9e, NEOH Master Plan (prepared by B. Ashe, NPT)

“The initial measure for establishing the Northeast Oregon Hatchery (NEOH) was

adopted in the Northwest Power Planning Council’s 1987 Columbia River Basin Fish and

Wildlife Program. First steps in this process began in 1988 when the NPPC authorized

the Nez Perce Tribe (NPT), the Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) and the

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) to submit a master plan for review. At

that time, the request to those agencies was a master plan that addressed not only salmon

(spring chinook) and steelhead, but also coho, sockeye, and fall chinook ("that the facility

need not necessarily be limited to spring chinook, as originally proposed, if other stocks

would benefit from hatchery supplementation”).

Under the 1994 Fish and Wildlife Program, this project is related to Measure 7.4L1,

which directs the Bonneville to:

“fund planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance and evaluation of

artificial production facilities to raise chinook salmon and steelhead for enhancement in

the Hood, Walla Walla, Grande Ronde and Imnaha rivers and elsewhere.”

As can be seen in the program language quoted above, the Northeast Oregon Hatchery

Project was an initial planning effort by the fishery co-managers to restore anadromous

fish runs throughout Northeast Oregon. Restoring spring chinook in the Grande Ronde

Subbasin was a discreet segment of that larger initiative. In March 1996, this Grande

Ronde spring chinook portion of the NEOH initiative was given special status -- it was

approved by the Council as one of the 15 high-priority supplementation projects.

Unfortunately, even with Council's high-priority status, co-managers could not agree on

an appropriate production strategy for Grande Ronde spring chinook, given issues

including ESA requirements, Oregon’s Wild Fish Policy, Lower Snake River

Compensation Plan requirements, Treaty and trust responsibility requirements, and other
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

140

considerations. Co-manager disagreements were resolved through the United States v.

Oregon dispute resolution, the co-managers agreed to ask an ad-hoc independent

scientific panel to review their respective proposed production strategies in the Grande

Ronde basin, and provide a determination on what would be appropriate. The panel

offered several options and recommendations, one of which was that an endemic

broodstock should be developed for supplementation uses in the Grande Ronde Subbasin.

The co-managers proposed two strategies to implement an endemic broodstock approach

for Grande Ronde spring chinook: captive broodstock and conventional broodstock. In

1994, the co-managers agreed on the strategy for implementation of the captive

broodstock component and initiated an emergency program. This captive broodstock

component became the Grande Ronde Captive Broodstock project and the Council

approved emergency funding in the fall of 1997 for this effort. This captive brood

component consisted of an expansion at Bonneville Hatchery and improvements to

Lookingglass Hatchery.

As the Grande Ronde captive brood project evolved, other projects under NEOH evolved

with it and were modified to encompass the development of the conventional broodstock

component of the overall endemic broodstock approach for Grande Ronde River, which

was initiated in 1997. The need for the endemic component became the Grande Ronde

Basin Endemic Spring Chinook Supplementation project (GRESCP) and was approved

by Council on June 10 1998. The approved action recommended funding for the

construction of adult collection weirs and juvenile acclimation facilities at three sites —

Catherine Creek, Upper Grande Ronde River and Lostine River.

In 1998, we refocused the master planning development on how we might more

realistically phase in rebuilding goals given limited regional funding and broodstock

limitations related to low numbers of available returning fish. The original concept for

the NEOH Master Plans called for “new” production that would be additional to the

LSRCP production currently occurring at Lookingglass Hatchery. However, with the

continuing decline of salmon runs and the subsequent overload this caused on

Lookingglass (i.e. with the additional burdens placed on the facility), as a tool to forestall

extinction of Northeast Oregon chinook, the NPT concentrated their planning efforts on

alleviating stress at the facility and restructuring where existing production would occur.

The goal was not new production, but address the current levels of production (i.e.

currently permitted program) under LSRCP using new and improved techniques.

As a result, the Grande Ronde and Imnaha Spring Chinook Master Plan (Ashe et al.

2000) was developed with this new focus and submitted to the NPPC in April, 2000.

Upon approval of the Spring Chinook Master Plan the NPPC also authorized the NPT to

reinitiate the original planning scope of the project by completing a master plan for

Grande Ronde coho salmon and Grande Ronde and Imnaha steelhead.”

This text provides an excellent background for the tasks included in the current NEOH

proposal (NEOH Master Plan, proposal #198805301) and introduces the programs

included in the GRESCP. While the NEOH proposals is described as the “planning”
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

141

component of supplementation and restoration programs, the GRESCP are spring

chinook programs “implemented" due to their extremely depressed returns in the mid1990s. Future progress for tasks included in the Master Plan require review through the

NPPC’s 3-Step process. Many of the costs must be considered “place holders” assuming

successful completion of these planning and review tasks. Five other proposals constitute

the supplementation activities for spring chinook in the Grande Ronde River (Fig 1).

Figure 1. Inter-relation of the NEOH and GRESCP proposals reviewed in the Blue

Mountain Province, September 2001. Color-coded boxes denote related proposals and

activities.

Northeast Oregon Hatchery Proposals

• for Imnaha &Grande Ronde rivers

• planning and new facilities for Spring

chinook supplementation (depends on

final NPPC 3-Step process)

• planning for development of endemic

brood stock for summer Steelhead,

supplementation and restoration

• planning for re-introduction of Coho

salmon (preliminary assessment done)

• planning for re-introduction of

Sockeye salmon in Wallowa Lake

• and associated Monitoring and

Evaluation (limited info provided)

• Implementation of captive brood and

conventional hatchery programs:

• Juvenile acclimation and release sites,

adult weir and sampling sites ...

conventional hatchery program to

supplement natural production in the

Lostine R., Catherine Cr., & upper

Grande Ronde R. (projects #198805305,

#199800702, #199800703)

• natural production reserves in the

Minam and Wenaha rivers

• Captive brood stock development for

Lostine R., Catherine Cr., & upper

Grande Ronde R. (projects #199801001,

#199801006)

• Monitoring and Evaluation included

 NEOH Master Plan (#198805301) Grande Ronde Endemic Spring Chinook

Supplementation Program, 1996

Lower Snake River Compensation Plan

provides for Spring Chinook rearing at

Lookingglass Hatchery, fall chinook &

steelhead programs Province, and M&E.

A notable component of the GRESCP is the natural production reserves maintained in the

Minam and Wenaha rivers. Spring chinook production in these rivers has not been

supplemented with hatchery production but have received strays from past programs.

These systems may serve as “controls” for comparison with trends in the supplemented

streams in the Grande Ronde system but limited data was presented on returns in the

Minam or Wenaha rivers. Monitoring of spawning escapements to these systems is

included in a LSRCP project (#200109, LSRCP-Oregon Evaluation Studies) but is not

included in the GRESCP activities listed above.

The artificial production programs in the Province involve four co-management agencies:

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes

of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the latter as

managers of the LSRCP). Significant resources are apparently required to achieve the
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

142

cooperation and coordination to conduct these programs. However, based on the ISRP

tour and their proposals, these co-managers seem to have been successful in achieving

this.

Review of Specific Proposals

1. Project ID: 198805301

Northeast Oregon Hatchery Master Plan

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Plan and develop conservation production facilities in the Imnaha

and Grande Ronde rivers necessary to implement salmon recovery programs for native,

ESA listed, spring chinook and steelhead, and reintroduction of coho and sockeye

salmon.

FY02 Request: $2,714,740

3 YR Estimate: $24,232,740

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response required. As described NEOH section above, this proposal is a continuation of

past planning and design efforts to develop conservation production facilities in the

Imnaha and Grande Ronde rivers necessary to implement salmon recovery programs for

native, ESA listed, spring chinook and steelhead, and reintroduction of coho and sockeye

salmon. The tasks by species are each at different levels of preparedness with the spring

chinook plans significantly in advance of the other species (NPPC Step-2 proposal

submitted). The proposal contains some very good background information and

description of relations to Regional Programs and other projects. Unfortunately, the more

technical sections concerning objectives and methods are weaker, and monitoring and

evaluation tasks similarly undefined or described (even though a large budget was

identified). The ISRP identified similar concern for the objectives in their last review.

We recognize though that for spring chinook these concerns for objectives and methods

were addressed in the Step-One NEOH Master Plan (Ashe et al. 2000) and accepted

following the ISRP review (ISRP 20000-6). ISRP questions concerning monitoring and

evaluation have been addressed in the Step-2 Submittal to the NPPC (August 2001) but

have not be fully reviewed at this time. We plan to complete our preliminary review in

late October. Following our Provincial review though, the ISRP requests response to

some general issues for consideration:

1) This proposal addresses four species for eventual restoration either through

supplementation (spring chinook and steelhead through development of endemic

brood stocks) or re-introduction of extirpated species (coho and sockeye salmon).

NPPC authorized development of master plans for coho (November 2001) and

steelhead (October 2002). For coho salmon, a feasibility analysis (Cramer and Witty

1998) concluded that “the prospect for successful introduction was good, however,

annual supplementation would likely be necessary to sustain the adult return goals,

due to limiting factors out of the subbasin”. The ISRP does not wish to comment on

the desire of local agencies for these resources but an “implied” priority that concerns

us. Do the co-managers intend to proceed with coho before or simultaneously with

the steelhead programs? If so, we note that the listing of steelhead requires a higher
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

143

priority on this species and, biologically we note a concern for potential competition

between these species ... particularly when production of natural steelhead is

depressed. Coho salmon are extremely opportunistic in their habitat use and may

generate an additional impact on steelhead that has not been acknowledged. The comanagers should comment on the timing of these events and/or their understanding of

these potential interactions. Our recommendation would be to defer coho reintroduction until steelhead is well established and natural populations more secure.

Further, the re-introduction of sockeye salmon to Wallowa Lake should be deferred

until studies of the lake ecosystem demonstrate an understanding of why kokanee

production is declining. Re-introduction of sockeye will be very unlikely to succeed

if the inter-specific competition in the lake is not favorable to kokanee. At this time,

resources should be directed to studying this ecosystem instead of planning

enhancement facilities.

2) As in the past review, the committee continues to be concerned about the emphasis on

hatchery-oriented production to support recovery without some balanced approach to

correcting the root problems. Two concerns should be addressed, these include the

expectation of harvest on these recovering stocks and the absence of a habitat

restoration plan incorporated into the master plan. As expressed previously, are we

“treating the symptoms, not solutions”? The implementation of harvest must be

conducted carefully to avoid the obvious conflict with allowing these listed species to

spawn and recovery ... the co-managers should establish precautionary guidelines for

when harvest is allowed and at what rates. The habitat issues are large, but must be

addressed before our investments in facilities are likely to show sustained benefits for

natural production. Many habitat projects were reviewed by the committee, but

within the master plan, do the co-managers have a plan to monitor the overall

watershed “health” or productivity of the stocks? The sum of the individual habitat

projects should be evaluated to assess success and ensure harvest rates are compatible

with stock productivities in their current environments.

3) Past ISRP reviews were critical of this proposal for “failing to clearly develop a

rationale for their goals and objectives (many of the latter were in fact simply tasks,

not biological objectives) which were very broad and general. Most remain vaguely

presented and justified. Because alternatives to development of proposed facilities

will be addressed in the master plan document, it is impossible to evaluate the

scientific merit of the various alternatives until the document is available for review.

The Fish and Wildlife Plan does not constitute scientific justification for planning and

development for coho and sockeye salmon reintroduction and steelhead

supplementation.” In the current proposal, objectives 5 and 6 (Section 9f) are not

included in the budget summary, and four of the objectives involve monitoring and

evaluation but without any clarification of tasks, methods, or intended uses. This

panel continues to share the concerns expressed previously. We recognize that this

likely results from the scope of activities included in one proposal but given our task

of evaluating the scientific basis of the proposals ... this format of presentation is

unlikely to receive positive reviews without addressing the concerns expressed. Can

the co-managers address these concerns or is an alternative format of necessary? For
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

144

example, four proposals with the necessary detail maybe required for technical

review.

4) While the spawning escapement monitoring in the Minam and Wenaha rivers are not

included as an activity in this NEOH Master Plan, the comparability of monitoring

programs in these treated streams and those control streams is of concern. For a valid

comparison between systems, similar evaluation programs should be conducted in

each system. At present, our understanding of the surveys in the Minam and Wenaha

rivers is that visual index surveys are conducted; whereas in the Lostine, Catherine,

and Grande Ronde rivers more quantitative surveys are now conducted (weirs and

mark-recapture). The co-managers should comment on the comparability of these

surveys and/or how they could evaluate this concern.

At present, this review panel is unable to support the proposal, and its large budget, due

to its uncertain scientific basis. Based on the need for a “sound scientific basis” to the

proposals, the committee can not adequately review these proposals due to a lack of

biological or quantitative goals, measurable objectives, and methodology. Our

experience with the Step-1 process for spring chinook indicated that these can be

developed but they are not present in this submission. Our suggestion would be to defer

final comment until the Step processes begin but the issue of allowing for substantial

budgets (without a strong basis presented) would have to be addressed by the Council.

2. Project ID: 198805305

Northeast Oregon Hatcheries Planning (ODFW)

Sponsor: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

FY02 Request: $79,376

3 YR Estimate: $248,187

and

3. Project ID: 199800704

Northeast Oregon Hatcheries Implementation (ODFW)

FY02 Request: $206,048

3 YR Estimate: $633,197

Short Description: Work with co-managers to implement the Grande Ronde Endemic

Spring Chinook Supplementation Program (GRESCSP).

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response required. These proposals provide for ODFW to work with co-managers to

implement the Grande Ronde Endemic Spring Chinook Supplementation program. The

activities are largely related to operating and maintenance expenses for program

coordination, the safe transport of juveniles and brood adults from field sites to the

Lookingglass Hatchery, and assistance to the Fish Health Pathologist (USFWS).

Minimal funds are requested for M&E but the activities seem more involved than would

be provided by the limited M&E budget ($20,973 in FY02). A very strong cost sharing

budget is included in this proposal: $3 million per year from the LSRCP for
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

145

Lookingglass and Irrigon hatcheries, M&E and fish health inspections, plus $70,000 for

the ODFW District Biologist. The activities are well integrated with the associated

proposals (#199800702 and #199800703) and captive brood program. A response is

requested, however, concerning the activities to be included in M&E (Objective 4,

section 9f). What will be undertaken and how are the tasks to be addressed with such a

limited budged? Is this proposal only including staff time for participation?

4. Project ID: 199800702

Grande Ronde Supplementation: Lostine River O&M and M&E

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Operate adult trapping and juvenile acclimation facilities and

conduct monitoring and evaluation in the Lostine River to implement the Lostine

component of the Grande Ronde Basin Endemic Spring Chinook Supplementation

Program (GRESP).

FY02 Request: $609,302

3 YR Estimate: $1,902,671

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Fundable, without response. This NPT proposal coupled with the matching CTUIR

proposal (#199800703) provides the core activities for the GRESCP. The Nez Perce

Tribe is responsible for implementation, co-ordination, and facilitation of the Lostine

River component of the GRESCP. Tasks included in the proposal include projection coordination with the co-managers (ODFW, CTUIR, USFWS), operation and maintenance

of the Lostine River acclimation site, operation and maintenance of the adult weir and

trapping site, extensive M&E programs, and reporting. The proposal is well written

providing good background and relationships to other projects, annual summaries of

work since 1997 including past costs, and detailed goals and objectives. Minor

comments on the report include that adult population sizes for 1999 and 2000 return years

were not included in the result section (section 9e), and that more detailed information on

the mark-recapture estimates of population sizes in the river should be provided

(Objective 6, sampling surveys, etc.). While the work seems well organized, reference to

published reports or records of this work would have strengthened the technical

presentation. For future proposals, the authors should report results of the genetic

sampling and analyses. The proposal notes this task and contract for analyses but does

not provide any insight into results to-date.

The proposal seems to have responded to many of the comments in the past ISRP review.

For example, while the objectives continue to simply state tasks that might address

biological goals, the goals of the program are stated in the beginning of section 9f. One

continued limitation is the limited collection of habitat data (temperature and discharge

information) at trap sites. During the tour, concerns were expressed about habitat quality

in the lower Lostine River, but the proposal does not include any consideration of this as

a limiting factor in smolt survival etc.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

146

Overall, the ISRP wished to acknowledge a well-prepared proposal with a strong M&E

component. We look forward to reviewing results and publication of this work.

5. Project ID: 199800703

Facility O&M and Program M&E for Grande Ronde Spring Chinook Salmon and

Summer Steelhead

Sponsor: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Develop, implement, and evaluate integrated conventional and

captive brood hatchery projects to prevent extinction and stabilize populations of

threatened spring chinook salmon and summer steelhead populations in the Grande

Ronde River.

FY02 Request: $702,010

3 YR Estimate: $2,405,288

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response required. This CTUIR proposal coupled with the matching NPT proposal

(#199800702) provides the core activities for the GRESCP. The CTUIR is responsible

for implementation, coordination, and facilitation of the Catherine Creek and upper

Grande Ronde component of the GRESCP, plus this proposal involves some steelhead

activities. Tasks included in the proposal include projection coordination with the comanagers (ODFW, NPT, USFWS), operation and maintenance of the two acclimation

sites, operation and maintenance of the adult weir and trapping sites, extensive M&E

programs, and reporting. In general the historical information and relations between

projects are well described and informative. Unfortunately, this proposal lacks the

detailed information and tasks that were presented in proposal #199800702 even though

the proposals essentially for the same program activities. The goals are certainly implied

in the proposal but the objectives are stated as operations, not as measurable outcomes

and some task merely re-state the objective. Objective 2 requests over $100,000 for

meeting and communications with no further details or justification. Objective 5

concerns monitoring success (increasing returns and maintaining genetic diversity) but

provides no insight into activities and methods. Further, objective 4 and 5 include

statements of assumptions but the assumptions stated are essential aspects of the

investigation and must be evaluated, not assumed. The proposal includes a section on

Adaptive Management but the paragraph describes how new information will be

incorporated into procedures. This is not the intent of adaptive management. Adaptive

management involves designed experimental treatments, assessments, and responses that

are pre-described ... not just responding to a trial and error process. The level of detailed

provided concerning M&E does not merit the budget requested.

These comments are unfortunately quite similar to the ISRP comments from the last

review. After responses had been received in the last review, the ISRP concluded “Delay

funding until the sponsor provides an adequate detailed study design to BPA such as that

the sponsors identify as being in their companion project 9801001. The response focused

on justifying the program, but that was not the ISRP’s primary concern.” Following the

ISRP tour (Sept. 2001) and discussion with those involved, plus given the quality of the

associated proposal (#199800702), it seems apparent to this review panel that a proposal
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

147

with appropriate technical standards can be developed, but it has not been received. We

suggest the principal investigators use this “response loop” process to address these

concerns and complete this proposal.

6. Project ID: 199801001

Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program

Sponsor: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Rapidly increase numbers of chinook salmon in the Grande Ronde

Basin while protecting genetic diversity, and develop and evaluate methodologies for

captive broodstock programs.

FY02 Request: $739,096

3 YR Estimate: $2,329,994

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Fundable. No response required. This is a well-written proposal that focuses on research

and evaluation of alternative approaches to supplementation through captive broodstock.

The proposal presents a thorough technical background that puts the project in context,

articulates conditions project success, and lists the operating assumptions behind the

experimental captive broodstock program. The rationale and significance to regional

programs is detailed and clear. The project is well integrated with numerous other efforts

in the Grande Ronde Subbasin. The project history section includes results to date, with

interpretation of those results and publications produced.

The proposal would be structurally improved if the tasks were associated with specific

objectives, rather than presenting a list of 8 objectives with tasks listed under “operation

and maintenance” and “monitoring and evaluation.” The presentation of methods is

thorough.

Some minor comments for consideration are:

1) DNA samples are being collected but not processed apparently due to an uncertianty

concerning what will be derived from this work. Information could be gained at

several levels of detail. Samples of the juveniles collected for grow-out to brood

stock could be examined to test whether many sibs were collected in the randomized

samples. By sampling the brood adults, these data could be compared with the

mature progeny (upon return) to investigate the numbers of parents represented in the

population (an important determinant of the genetically effective population size of

the natural stock). We would recommend the samples be processed and consultations

with a population geneticist.

2) There is limited description of the spawning matrix referred to. A reference for more

detail should be provided and more detail on the spawning protocols provided.

3) The reduced fecundity in the captive brood stock will reduce the F1 progeny

produced. The level of reduction is substantial but no response or investigation was

proposed? It is not evident in the proposal if the fecundity was reduced due to

reduced body size, or is there concern for the nutrition and health of these fish?

4) PIT tags are applied to study survival by family and/or treatment, but no indication

was presented about how the number of tags applied was determined. This is an
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

148

important project that merits careful evaluation. The principles should ensure that

adequate numbers of tags are being applied in order to assess the questions of interest.

A statistical assessment of the number of tags applied should be undertaken and

reported.

5) This is a unique opportunity to study the genetics of these fish. While the proposal is

well prepared, there is an apparently lack of quantitative genetic interest. This aspect

of the study may simply be under-stated in the text but if not, then an expert in this

field should be consulted to review these procedures and ensure that opportunities re

not be lost.

In conclusion, while we endorse this proposal and the need for a captive brood program

when it was implemented, it is wise to re-state the advice from the ISRP’s last review:

“Even though the proposal acknowledges that threats to adult survival, particularly

habitat and passage, must be solved for the broodstock programs to be successful

conservation or mitigation tools, to fund these captive broodstock programs without

concomitant emphasis on solving the root problems seems financially foolish and

futile.”

This comment is not targeted at this particular proposal but is an on-going

consideration for the NEOH Master Plan and the need to balance culture activities

with efforts to correct the original causes of the problem.

7. Project ID: 199801006

Captive Broodstock Artificial Propagation

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Implement and evaluate the captive broodstock project through the

collection of juvenile salmon from the wild and maintaining them in captivity. The

founding generation is spawned and the resulting F1 generation is released back to the

parental stream.

FY02 Request: $170,177

3 YR Estimate: $526,000

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments:

Response required. This proposal is for monitoring and evaluation of progeny of the

captive brood stock collected and reared under project #199801001. The proposal

involves co-ordination with state and federal agencies, assistance in the monitoring and

evaluation of juveniles and brood adults reared at Bonneville Hatchery and Manchester

Marine Laboratory, monitoring and evaluation of the F1 generation juveniles and

returning adults, and reporting. Like proposal #199801001, this is a well-written

proposal that focuses on research and evaluation of alternative approaches to

supplementation through captive broodstock. The proposal presents a thorough technical

background that puts the project in context, the rationale and significance to regional

programs is detailed and clear, and project history section includes results to date, with

some comparisons between stocks and/or rearing treatments. Objectives are again stated

as tasks, and not measurable comparisons or tests, but the intentions in this context are

clear.
ISRP 2001-9 Preliminary Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

149

A response is requested, however, concerning the PIT tagging of the F1 juveniles.

Section 8 of this proposal indicates that 8,000 PIT tags are included (Objective 3.1). It is

not evident from the text, however, if this is the total number of PIT tags allocated to all

three populations (are other PIT tags provided by other sources, etc.), and how are these

tags allocated between stocks, treatments, and families? This concern needs to be

clarified in this proposal. A statistical basis to the tagging program would clearly

strengthen this proposal.

In a past review, there was a question concerning overlap between this program and

M&E associated with the conventional hatchery production activities. Our understanding

is that these M&E tasks are discrete. However, there is an important question associated

with these marking programs. The comparison of natural, conventional, and captive

brood production will obviously be based on the extensive use of PIT tags in many of the

proposals reviewed. Have the co-managers considered the adequacy of marking rates to

compare these three types of spring chinook production, and if so, what level of

difference in performance may be detectable? This latter issue is not only relevant to this

one proposal, but other NPT proposals have noted methods for estimating the numbers of

PIT tags required for comparisons. The NPT may be able to advise on this question.

________________________________________

\\nwppcu3\fish\em\ww\isrp\1 final isrp reports\isrp 2001-9 prelim mtn snake blue mtn.doc