Council Document ISRP 2000-5

Independent Scientific Review Panel

for the Northwest Power Planning Council

Review of the Yakama Nation’s Mid-Columbia Coho

Reintroduction Feasibility Project

Partial Step Two of the Northwest Power Planning Council’s

Three-Step Review Process

Charles C. Coutant

Daniel Goodman

Susan S. Hanna

Nancy Huntly

Dennis Lettenmaier

Lyman McDonald

Brian Riddell

William Smoker

Richard R. Whitney

Richard N. Williams

James Hall, PRG

ISRP 2000-5

May 19, 2000

ISRP 2000-5 Mid-Columbia Coho Review

1

ISRP Partial Step Two Review of the Yakama Nation’s MidColumbia Coho Reintroduction Feasibility Project

Review Process

On March 24th, 2000, the Northwest Power Planning Council requested that the ISRP review the

Yakama Nation’s Mid-Columbia Coho Reintroduction Feasibility Project. The review is a

partial step two review under the Council’s Three Step Review Process and is intended to

address the Council’s Fiscal Year 2000 funding decision regarding the project. The ISRP’s

review is provided below in three sections: 1) Recommendations and Findings, 2) General

Comments, and 3) Specific ISRP Reviewer Comments. The Specific Reviewer Comments are

incorporated in the three-step review template submitted by the Yakama Nation.

I. Recommendations and Findings

In the Council’s Fiscal Year 2000 funding decision on the Mid-Columbia Coho Reintroduction

Feasibility Project, the Council recommended that full funding be withheld until the project

sponsors provided adequate information related to the bulleted items listed below. The Yakama

Nation provided the ISRP with documents addressing each of the items. The ISRP’s

recommendations and findings on each item are provided under each bullet. More detailed ISRP

comments are provided in the two later sections.

• The Council requested a detailed written report describing the background, methods, data

collected, discussion and analysis of results, and problems encountered on the Methow coho

reintroduction.

The Council’s request for information on results from the Methow effort originated from

concerns raised by the ISRP in its review of this project’s Fiscal Year 2000 proposal. The ISRP

felt that before abandoning efforts in the Methow River Basin and pursuing reintroduction in the

Wenatchee River Basin, the reintroduction efforts in the Methow should be fully analyzed. To

address this issue, the Yakama Nation provided the 1999 Annual Report (Dunnigan 1999), which

describes research results for this project and includes work performed not only in the Methow

but also in the Wenatchee and Yakima basins. We were impressed with the breadth of

perspective and coverage of the literature demonstrated in that report. The report is well written

and covers the issues well. In addition, the cover letter provides a good summary and that, along

with other reports adequately explain the change in emphasis from the Methow to the Wenatchee

River. Enough work will continue in the Methow to ensure that useful information can be

obtained from work previously done.

• The Council requested a policy and scientific rationale for the decision to switch the

emphasis of the reintroduction project to the Wenatchee sub-basin.

The Council’s request for information on the switch also originated from concerns raised in the

ISRP’s earlier review. The ISRP commented that there needed to be more complete justification

for shifting the emphasis of the effort from the Methow River to the Wenatchee River. The ISRP
2

now finds that the documents provided in the present process include more information on that

subject, supporting the shift.

• The Council requested a three-step review for the project.

The ISRP recommends that the Mid-Columbia Coho Reintroduction Feasibility Project pass the

partial step two review. The project should proceed to the next step in the Three Step Review

Process, with the condition that additional plans for monitoring and evaluation include effects of

the fishery and that other concerns expressed in the ISRP’s general and specific comments are

addressed.

• The Council requested a detailed study plan describing the proposed work.

The Yakama Nation provided its recently completed Hatchery and Genetics Management Plan as

the project's study plan. In addition, we were supplied with a document entitled “Mid-Columbia

coho salmon study plan” prepared by the Yakama Indian Nation Fisheries Resource

Management Program, dated 11/25/98, which includes more detailed information on the

proposed work. As described above as a condition to passing this partial step two review, the

ISRP finds that the current study plan needs to improve.

The plan should be supplemented to:

1) Provide a specific statement of goals in terms of numbers of coho adults and/or of

smolt to adult return rates that are expected to constitute success in reestablishment or at

least to render unnecessary further hatchery plants or supplementation with artificially

reared coho;

2) Modify monitoring and evaluation procedures to clarify how time-limited objectives

will be measured (see ISRP comments on Question 1.1);

3) Discuss the possibility that further facilities may not be needed and the conditions that

would enter into making that decision;

4) Respond to the general and specific comments provided below.
ISRP 2000-5 Mid-Columbia Coho Review

3

II. General Comments

The plan would benefit by inclusion of ideas that will clearly distinguish the effort from earlier

failed efforts to reestablish coho.

A. Harvest Rates as Limiting Factors. The Study Plan identifies factors limiting coho salmon

enhancement in the mid-Columbia Basin as “....lower mainstem Columbia River and ocean

harvest rates and smolt mortality within the mainstem Columbia, Yakima and

Wenatchee/Methow river basins.” (page 12). The documents we reviewed do not adequately deal

with the issue of the possible effects of fisheries on the research project and the success of

reestablishment of coho. The assumption that NMFS requirements for protection of endangered

stocks will encompass benefits for upper river coho may or may not be warranted. The

consideration of harvest as a limiting factor that could affect the success of the project, or affect

its evaluation, was incomplete in the description of the research design, leaving too much to be

filled in by the reviewer. Existing fisheries are described on pages 16 and 17 of the HGMP, but

the reviewer looks for an analysis of how these fisheries might affect the study, specifically in

the monitoring and evaluation phases. It appears that up to 50% of the coho may be taken below

Bonneville Dam. Then it appears that the counts at Bonneville Dam are used as a basis for

assuring that 50% of the total run succeeds in passing beyond Bonneville. Presumably, this

includes the ocean and mainstem removals. An additional 10% may be removed in upriver

fisheries, for a total harvest rate of 60%. This fishing rate might be too high for mid-Columbia

stocks to tolerate. There is no discussion of this question. The discussion concludes by asserting

that harvest rates would be adjusted annually, once the escapement goals are agreed upon and

established by all relevant parties, presumably following successful reintroduction into midColumbia tributaries. Harvest rate might be a significant limiting factor on potential production

of stocks in the mid-Columbia, and failure to address this issue could doom the “research”

project to failure. The only way to find out is to mark experimental fish with coded wire tags and

allow their capture in the fishery.

One of the objectives of the study is to measure the rate of survival from the smolt to adult stage.

This would be accomplished by applying coded wire tags to “naturalized” juveniles beginning in

the year 2002 (p. 42 and Table 9, p. 43) and observing the rate of return. However, it is stated

that those fish so tagged would not be adipose clipped. Is the purpose of this procedure to avoid

their being kept in the selective fisheries? They would thus presumably be treated by fishermen

as wild fish and released if caught in the selective fisheries described as taking place in the ocean

and mainstem. On the other hand, in the early years, 1999, 2000, and 2001, no coded wire tags

would be applied to “transfer” fish. As we understand it then, these early “transfer” fish (if finclipped as hatchery fish) would be subject to the fishing rates that occur in the ocean and

mainstem – or would they also not be fin clipped? Measurement of the adult return is planned to

be made from counts in the fish ladders. For the Wenatchee River, for example, the estimate

would come either from the counts at Rock Island Dam minus the counts at Rocky Reach Dam,

or alternatively from counts at Tumwater Dam (HGMP, page 45, and Study Plan, page 34). This

method will provide no estimate of the numbers of fish that might have been removed in the

ocean or mainstem fisheries. Application of coded wire tags to the “transfer” fish would also

make it possible to document straying (if they are fin-clipped so they can be identified as having

a coded wire tag).
4

It would be shortsighted not to include estimates of fishing rate in the research design. Estimates

should be obtained of harvest rates that occur on the study fish and to be expected if

reestablishment were to occur. If test fish are treated as though they were wild fish, not subject to

fishing, then no information will be obtained on probable fishing rates to which they will be

subjected when the project succeeds, making later decisions on appropriate harvest rates for the

fishery difficult. In summary, further thought needs to be given to this subject. Perhaps there

should be a mix of fin-clipped and non-clipped fish in each group.

B. Monitoring and Evaluation. There is a considerable amount of monitoring being carried out

in this project, and it is generally well reported. There are a number of facilities already in place

to facilitate monitoring and evaluation. The breadth of perspective and coverage of the literature

demonstrated in the 1999 Annual Report (Dunnigan 1999) are commendable. The report is

clearly written and covers the issues well. However, we have several suggestions for additional

monitoring and evaluation.

Given the very substantial investment in this effort, it is somewhat disturbing that there is no

attempt to estimate the probability of success or establish criteria for measurement of success in

establishing naturally spawning self-sustaining populations of coho salmon in the mid-Columbia

Basin. There seems to be a belief that the long-term project will succeed, but there is no attempt

to estimate the smolt-to-adult return rate that would be required to sustain a natural population.

The 1998 Study Plan (Section 4.2.1) mentions the question, but does not carry it far enough to

reach a conclusion. Based on other studies of natural production of coho smolts, a range of

necessary smolt-to-adult survival rates should be calculated. That rate should be compared with

current rates experienced for hatchery stocks in the mid-Columbia tributaries (Yakima and

Methow), at least as a benchmark for how significant an improvement in this survival rate will

be required. The needed increase will probably be substantial and should be specified.

Another concern, related to that above, is what appears to be an incorrect use of juvenile survival

rates in the HGMP (pp. 19-20). These rates were used to estimate the female escapement and

adult coho escapement required to achieve the smolt carrying capacities derived by methods of

Reeves et al. (1989). There seem to be four problems:

1) It would seem to require twice the number of females indicated in Table 5 to achieve the

smolt natural stocking capacities listed. For example: for Nason Creek, 854 (females) x

2,750 x 0.6 x 0.8 x 0.75 = 845,460 x 0.5 = 422,730 (smolts), whereas the table indicates

427 females to give a comparable number. Thus the numbers for female and adult

escapement given in the table should be doubled.

2) However, the adjustment has to be much greater than that. If those life-stage-specific

survival rates are in fact from Lestelle, they represent what he calls benchmarks,

maximum rates in the absence of any density effects and in optimum habitat. Neither of

these conditions apply in this example, thus it is unrealistic to use those figures in the

way they appear to have been used here. At smolt carrying capacity those rates would be

substantially lower. As calculated, the egg to smolt survival is 18%. For a long run of

years in the Oregon Coast range, egg to smolt survival averaged 3-4%. These values may

not be typical of the mid-Columbia, but they come from relatively good habitat.

Consequently, the numbers of returning adult females necessary to achieve the juvenile
ISRP 2000-5 Mid-Columbia Coho Review

5

carrying capacities are substantially higher than the corrected values in Table 5. Hence

smolt-to-adult survivals needed for sustainability will be much higher than would be

indicated with those figures.

3) The proposal should recognize that the use of Reeves et al., 1989 to estimate juvenile

carrying capacity is based primarily on data from coastal populations. Adjustments

probably will be needed to relate to mid-Columbia tributaries, where carrying capacities

for coho probably are lower. To arrive at estimates of carrying capacity it might be more

realistic to use historical estimates of adult numbers (given on page 17 of the HGMP),

adjusted downward in consideration of habitat degradation.

4) The female sex ratio does not appear to include the number of jacks, which could be

misleading.

Though the attempt to determine spawning success of hatchery-reared adults in the wild is to be

commended (1999 Annual Report, Chapter 3), the experimental design (Study Plan, Section

4.1.3) is weak, for at least two reasons. Most importantly, lacking direct comparison of the

success of naturally produced and hatchery-produced adults, the substantial variation in egg to

fry survival rates and effects of gravel quality virtually guarantee that the comparison to

literature values will be a test with very little power. The gravel sampling procedure is also

questionable. Samples taken adjacent to the redd will not characterize conditions in the egg

pocket (see Chapman, 1988, TAFS 117:1-21 and 1990, 119:156-164) and will provide only very

general information about redd selection.

C. Other. There are some other concerns for which it is not easy to find a home among the many

questions on the form. Some of these are listed below:

1) We are pleased to see some attention to the problem of return timing of naturally

spawning adults (1999 Annual Report, Chapter 3), and that the original timing of coho in

the mid-Columbia was somewhat similar to the early-run fish that are being used for

reintroduction. Potential interactions with chinook could very much depend on

emergence timing of the two species in systems where they both spawn. Existing

temperature records could be used to estimate probable time of emergence for these coho

to compare with the chinook. The EA (p. 5) downplays the possibility of interaction

between coho and chinook because acclimation sites for release of coho smolts would be

downstream of spring chinook spawning/rearing reaches, so that returning adults would

home there and not move upstream. That may be true in the short term, but with the

intention to develop naturally spawning populations, it is to be expected that coho would

eventually move as far into the headwaters as they can penetrate, and consequently

interact with juvenile chinook. The work by Spaulding et al. (1989) seems to suggest that

the introduction of hatchery coho into a wild population of chinook will not significantly

disrupt the chinook population, but it will be prudent to study interactions if and when

coho establish natural populations themselves. Such studies are mentioned, but are said to

be beyond the time frame of the current proposal. Of course, if there are adverse effects

on the endangered chinook it will be difficult to mitigate them at that point in time.

2) The relative quality of juvenile rearing habitat in each basin should be more thoroughly

addressed. The shift in emphasis from the Methow to the Wenatchee River, would seem
6

to require some discussion of differences in quality of habitat that might be available

within the tributaries themselves.

3) It would be useful to see reference to “success stories” if they exist. Are there

documented cases where hatchery coho (or other salmon, steelhead) have established

naturally spawning, self-sustaining populations, or where hatchery stocks have

successfully increased the abundance of wild stocks that were at a very low level? If so,

what can be learned from them?
ISRP 2000-5 Mid-Columbia Coho Review

7

III. Specific ISRP Reviewer Comments that Address the Council’s Three Step Review

Questions

Specific ISRP review comments that address the Council’s Three Step Review Questions are

incorporated in the Yakama Nation’s submittal. This section includes the Council’s specific

three-step question (red in the electronic document), the Yakama Nation’s response (black in the

electronic document), and the ISRP’s review comments (blue in the electronic document).

INTRODUCTION

The Mid-Columbia Coho Reintroduction Feasibility Project is studying the feasibility of reestablishing naturally reproducing coho in mid-Columbia basins, from which they have been

extirpated for many years. The Northwest Power Planning Council has requested a review of

this project under its three-step review process.

The Hatchery and Genetics Management Plan (HGMP) (YN et al. 1999), completed in

December 1999, is the latest and best-developed plan for the Mid-Columbia Coho Project, and

has provided significant new detail beyond the project as described in the April 1999

Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) (USDOE BPA

1999). Because at this stage the project is considered a research rather than a production project

(although up to 1.4 million smolts are proposed to be released), the project's scope, goals, and

impacts are best understood if reviewers read the HGMP in the order in which it is written.

However, the attachments requested by the Council for its three-step review direct the reviewer

to specific places in several documents that discuss issues of concern.

The following project-related documents are cited in answers to the questions below. Text

highlighted in red (electronic version) represents guidance and questions from Council

documents.

HGMP: Yakama Nation, Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, and Bonneville Power

Administration. December 1999. Hatchery and Genetics Management Plan, Mid Columbia

Coho Reintroduction Program. Portland, OR.

Dunnigan 1999: Dunnigan, James L. October 1999. Feasibility and Risks of Coho

Reintroduction in Mid-Columbia Monitoring and Evaluation, 1999 Annual Report.

Bonneville Power Administration Project Number 69604000.

BiOp: NMFS. June 1999. Biological Opinion: 1999 Coho Salmon Releases in the Wenatchee

River Basin by the Yakama Indian Nation and the Bonneville Power Administration. U.S.

Department of Commerce, NMFS, Northwest Region.

EA: U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration. April 1999. Mid-Columbia

Coho Reintroduction Feasibility Project Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact [FONSI]. USDOE/EA-1282, Portland, OR.
8

Study Plan: Yakama Indian Nation, Fisheries Resource Management Program. November

1998. Mid-Columbia Coho Salmon Study Plan 11/25/98. Prepared for Bonneville Power

Administration. Portland, OR.

D&H 1998: Dunnigan, J. and J. Hubble. August 1998. Results From YKFP and Mid-Columbia

Coho Monitoring and Evaluation Studies. Prepared for the Mid-Columbia Technical Work

Group.
ISRP 2000-5 Mid-Columbia Coho Review

9

ANSWERS TO ATTACHMENT 1:

Program Language Regarding Master Planning Requirements

7.4B.1 Master Planning

Because of the need to address potential conflicts among increased production, mixed-stock

harvest, gene conservation, consistency with other plans and other objectives, the Council calls

for detailed master plans where there is not a National Environmental Policy Act document that

provides enough information to evaluate new artificial production projects. Below, the Council

provides a suggested list of master plan elements. This list is intended to offer guidance, not to

impose requirements. Not all of these elements may be relevant in all projects, and some

unlisted elements may be important. In general, however, the elements listed below should be

considered in the course of master planning.

Question 1.1: Project goals

HGMP: Section 1.6 (p. 6)

EA: Sections 1.1 & 1.2 (p. 1-2)

Study Plan: Section 1.4 (p. 8-9, overall research objectives. Includes Yakima basin,

some results from which could be applicable to other mid-Columbia

basins)

ISRP Reviewer Comments: Specific numbers of returning adults that satisfy the requirements

for reestablishment should be specified. Lacking that criterion, there are no standards for

deciding when supplementation should terminate. Also, coho numbers could conceivably

increase to numbers that would adversely affect other salmonids.

The long-term goal, to reestablish naturally reproducing populations of coho salmon in midColumbia tributaries, is identified as an “optimistic” goal “....that may take many years to

achieve”. One wonders whether an even more optimistic possibility should be considered.

Suppose the introduction of small numbers of coho results in immediate establishment of selfsustaining populations. While experience in the recent past has led us to expect less, it is perhaps

worth remembering that planting of small numbers of salmon has, in some locations, resulted in

successful introductions in relatively short time spans. It appears that the impact statement and

study plan are actually taking a rather pessimistic attitude toward the possibility of success,

rather than an optimistic one. This may be justifiable, based on local experience, but it seems the

alternative should be discussed.

The project is further justified and described as “research”, in contrast to an action plan, and in

this way avoids some of the sticky questions that are glossed over in the EA, such as the

potential for significant competition and predation by coho on chinook and sockeye. While such

predation is likely to be minimal, or at least tolerable, the issue takes on a different perspective

when one considers the possibility of successful introduction from small numbers. Again, that

likelihood seems small, but real.

Question 1.2: Measurable and time-limited objectives
10

HGMP: Section 1.7 (p. 7)

ISRP Reviewer Comments: It is not clear that the monitoring effort will make it possible to

measure the time-limited objectives. For example, table 1 specifies a short-term objective of

achieving 539 adults returning to the Wenatchee River in 1999, based upon numbers of smolts

available for release. These numbers would increase to 1,027 in the years 2000 through 2005.

The plan will depend upon counts of coho at the mid-Columbia dams to assess rates of adult

return of the juveniles. It is not clear that a difference of the magnitude specified can be

measured and interpreted with confidence, given the wide variability usually encountered in

adult return numbers.

As noted in the general comments, numbers counted at the dams would fail to include fish that

might stray or be intercepted before they arrive at the dams. The result would be an

underestimate of the actual success of the project. This is a question that needs to be addressed in

the study. An adequate number of all test fish should be marked with coded wire tags and

adipose clips beginning immediately, so that subtractions prior to counting at Priest Rapids or

Rock Island dams can be accounted for. Recoveries of marked “transfers” could provide useful

information that could help explain small return numbers to the dams or other adult counting

stations.

Question 1.3: Factors limiting production of the target species

At this point in studying the feasibility of reintroducing coho to mid-Columbia basins, factors

limiting production are uncertain. Major questions being addressed in the study include

whether a lower Columbia River stock can be successfully adapted to the longer migrations

necessary to reach mid-Columbia basins; and whether coho interactions with listed and

sensitive species in these basins will threaten those other species. Release numbers and

locations (which affect production) are being limited for the feasibility study period to

minimize risks to other species. Production levels for the feasibility phase also are limited by

the need to use excess space at existing facilities: it does not make economic sense to build

substantial new facilities until more data show that coho have a reasonable chance of being

successfully reintroduced without significant risks to other species.

Factors limiting higher production levels in the long-term would be evaluated once feasibility

studies show that it is appropriate to consider "full implementation" of the project.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: See general comments and comments under Question 1.1. Plans for

“full implementation” ought to consider the possibility that additional facilities may not be

needed.

Question 1.4: Expected project benefits (e.g., gene conservation, preservation of biological

diversity, fishery enhancement and/or new information);
ISRP 2000-5 Mid-Columbia Coho Review

11

Attempts to restore species extirpated from a particular area are rare. In the near term,

feasibility studies will provide valuable information on the ability of an anadromous salmon

species to adapt to ecological conditions different from its genetic origin. If successful at

meeting its long-term goal of re-establishing a species that previously occupied this

environment while minimizing risks to other species, the project would increase the current

diversity of species in the mid-Columbia area and enhance the coho fishery. See also

HGMP: section 1.8 (p.7-8).

ISRP Reviewer Comments: One has to agree that species diversity would be increased if the

project is successful.

Question 1.5: Alternatives for resolving the resource problem

Because coho have been extirpated from the mid-Columbia region, the problem is considered

to be whether coho can be re-established in self-sustaining populations while minimizing

risks to other species. Under this definition of the problem, alternatives were defined in

terms of varying scopes of research to begin to answer the feasibility questions, and

secondarily, to assess alternative research locations.

EA: Chapter 2 (p. 6-18)

FONSI: Full document

ISRP Reviewer Comments: Alternatives were considered.

Question 1.6: Rationale for the proposed project

See response to Question 1, Attachment 1 and the cover letter to this submittal.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: Adequately discussed in the documents cited.

Question 1.7: How the proposed production project will maintain or sustain increases in

production

Not applicable at this time. If feasibility studies show coho return in sufficient numbers to

sustain a locally adapted broodstock and natural populations, proposals will be made and

evaluated for how production could be increased while minimizing negative interactions with

other species.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: The response needs to be clarified with specific goals to be used in

the decision on termination of the supplementation effort. See comments under Question 1.1.

Question 1.8: The historical and current status of anadromous and resident fish in the sub-basin

EA: Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 (p. 25-30)
12

HGMP: Section 2.2 (p. 12-14); section 2.4 (p. 17-18)

ISRP Reviewer Comments: Given the difficulty of obtaining historic information, this subject

is well covered in the documents.

Question 1.9: The current (and planned) management of anadromous and resident fish in the

sub-basin

EA: Section 3.2.4 (p. 30-31)

ISRP Reviewer Comments: This subject needs amplification with respect to specific goals for

the number of coho planned to be added to the total salmonid population.

Question 1.10: Consistency of proposed project with Council policies, National Marine

Fisheries Service recovery plans, other fishery management plans, watershed

plans and activities

EA: Section 3.2.4 (p. 30-31) explains other fishery management plans in the area and

that the Mid-Columbia Coho project coordinates with managers and regulators of

these plans.

HGMP: Section 2.1 (p. 11-12) explains the relationship to Council policies and to other

plans in the area as known up to December 1999.

The HGMP has been submitted to NMFS for a Biological Opinion, which is expected in

early spring 2000. No recovery plan for coho exists in the mid-Columbia region because the

species is considered extirpated.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: The discussion in the HGMP could have been clearer. For

example, from discussions elsewhere, it appears that the Columbia River Salmon Management

Plan, mandated by the U.S. District Court in U.S. v Oregon and Washington, requires transfer of

some juvenile salmon from lower river hatcheries to mid-Columbia tributaries. The current

proposal is to study the effects of those transfers. 1

 

1 A couple of minor points of clarification are hard to resist with respect to the statement at

the top of page 12, “The U.S. District Court ruled on March 22, 1974 that the Yakama Nation

and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife co-manage fish resources in Washington

state.” The decision (decree) was actually handed down on February 12, 1974. Judge Boldt’s

choice of Lincoln’s birthday was deliberate and planned. It is true that he issued an injunction to

assist in enforcing the ruling on March 22, 1974 after considering a motion for reconsideration

made by the state of Washington, and some questions raised by the state. It is misleading to say

that the decision calls for the state agency and tribes (Yakama Nation included) to “co-manage”

the fish resource. The state had asked the court to rule that the Yakama Nation (and Quinault

Tribe) do not meet the qualifications and conditions specified by the court in order to be selfregulating. The request was “Denied as to the Quinault Tribe; the required regulation was filed

with the Court, March 18, 1974. Denied as to the Yakima Nation, effective when that tribe
ISRP 2000-5 Mid-Columbia Coho Review

13

Question 1.11: Potential impact of other recovery activities on project outcome

Conservation and recovery activities for other species in mid-Columbia basins (e.g., spring

chinook, steelhead, sockeye) have strongly influenced the project's Technical Team in

determining all project activities, including smolt release numbers, locations, and timing;

broodstock collection locations and timing; and all research activities, especially those

related to potential ecological impacts. The HGMP, section 2.4 (p. 17) describes in general

terms the potential influence of habitat restoration activities on project outcome.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: Adequately considered. The reverse effect has been of more

concern to the proponents, i.e. the effects of coho introductions on recovery activities for other

species.

Question 1.12: Production objectives, methods and strategies

Study Plan: Section 1.4 (p. 8-9, overall research objectives)

HGMP: Sections 1.9 - 1.12 (p. 8-10)

ISRP Reviewer Comments: As noted previously, the Study Plan identifies factors limiting coho

salmon enhancement in the mid-Columbia Basin as “....lower mainstem Columbia River and

ocean harvest rates and smolt mortality within the mainstem Columbia, Yakima and

Wenatchee/Methow river basins.” (page 12). We have previously discussed harvest rates as a

limiting factor, and how the study should be modified to consider effects of harvest. Since smolt

mortality is identified as a limiting factor, one would expect the plan to emphasize reduction of

smolt mortality. While there is a discussion of the effects of dams on smolt survival, and this is

used as justification for emphasizing the Wenatchee River in place of the Methow, there are

other measures that might be undertaken, or at least discussed as possibilities in the plan.

For example, thought might be given to applying the so-called NATURES approach, where the

juveniles are reared in an environment intended to mimic natural stream conditions, the idea

being that when they are released they will respond more appropriately to the cues found in the

natural environment, including seeking cover, responding to flows, and so on, which is expected

to lead to higher rates of survival. Given that the tribe is employing this method elsewhere, it is

surprising that it is not mentioned in this proposal.

Faithful homing seems to be crucial to the success of the program and is a factor in the rate of

survival that will be measured. Previous experience leads us to believe that a portion of the test

fish may return to the hatchery where they were reared, rather than the acclimation site. Any

improvement in homing will result in an improved rate of measured “survival” to the tributaries

where they were planted. The plan might discuss measures that could be employed to improve

 

adopts a regulation comparable to that filed by the Quinault Tribe.” While the ultimate effect of

self-regulation led to the need for agreements on co-management, the term never appeared in any

of Judge Boldt’s rulings.
14

homing. For example, we did not find information on the length of time juveniles will be held in

the acclimation ponds. This might affect their homing ability.

Question 1.13: Brood stock selection and acquisition strategies

HGMP: Sections 5 & 6 (p. 32-38)

ISRP Reviewer Comments: The approach is to bring lower river “common garden” fish into

mid-Columbia River hatcheries for release. The next step would be to include returning fish in

the hatchery broodstock in succeeding generations, but augment them with more common garden

fish — the purpose of the continuation of the hatchery breeding and the augmentation being to

keep high the effective population number of the founders of this new race. We suspect that coho

have colonized all through their history with rather small N’s. They may not need large N’s

(above 100? above 500?). We wonder whether repeated generations of reproduction in the

hatchery, especially if augmented with common garden cousins, will be the most likely way to

engender a wild-spawning population. Why not set a criterion of, say 500, over two sequential

brood years, then breed only from successful coho returning to the project? Jacks could be used

to increase Ne over the next generation. Has there been input from a geneticist on this issue?

Question 1.14: Rationale for the number and life-history stage of the fish to be stocked,

particularly as they relate to the carrying capacity of the target stream and potential impact on

other species

Smolts are being used for research:

 a. to reduce potential interactions with listed species—once they leave acclimation sites,

they migrate quickly (HGMP, section 2.5; EA, section 3.3.1.2); and

 b. because we expect that smolt releases have the highest survival to the adult life stage, and

therefore would be the most efficient method of re-establishing populations of coho in these

areas.

Numbers to be released are calculated based on expected survival rates so as to allow

sufficient returns to test whether a genetically viable and locally adapted broodstock can be

established (HGMP: section 1.9, Table 1).

Release locations were chosen to minimize impacts to other species in the basin that are the

subject of special management programs. Most acclimation/release locations are at or above

facilities that allow most returning coho to be collected for broodstock, thus minimizing

potential adverse F2 interactions between returning coho progeny and other sensitive species.

The exceptions are Chumstick and Brender creeks in the Wenatchee basin. They were

chosen to allow for potential natural spawning, but both are downstream of habitat for

sensitive species (HGMP: section 2.2 [p. 12-14]).

The Yakama Nation also proposes conducting predation studies in the Yakima basin using

naturally produced coho fry and fingerlings, partly because of the critically low numbers of

chinook and steelhead in the Wenatchee and Methow basins. The transferability of the

results from Yakima basin studies to other mid-Columbia basins is still being debated

(Dunnigan 1999, p. 11-16).
ISRP 2000-5 Mid-Columbia Coho Review

15

See also: HGMP: Section 2.5 (p. 18-20, estimated carrying capacity and p. 21-29, ecological

interactions); section 5 (p. 32, origin and identity of broodstock); section 10.4.2 (p. 45,

monitoring of natural spawning); section 10.4.4 (p. 46-47, predation monitoring).

ISRP Reviewer Comments: Adequately discussed for the most part. See general comments (p.

2) regarding deficiencies in analysis of carrying capacity.

Question 1.15: Production profiles and release strategies

HGMP: Section 1.9 (p. 8-10); section 9 (p. 41).

ISRP Reviewer Comments: See previous comments, especially 1.12.

Question 1.16: Production policies and procedures

HGMP: Sections 5 & 6 (p. 32-38, broodstock); section 7 (p. 38, mating); section 8 (p. 39-

40, incubation/rearing); section 9 (p. 41, release).

ISRP Reviewer Comments:

The HGMP at 7.1 speculates that ‘random’ mating would be used. What is the randomization

procedure? How will spawners be rejected from the broodstock? Why not consider some form of

selection? For example, assort spawners according to whether they successfully return to the mid

river acclimation site. Include jack returns above their proportion — it would increase the

representation of returning adults in the population. It would be best to use single pair matings —

it will reduce variation of family size and its detrimental effect on Ne. Use a backup, bet-hedging

male’s semen after a minute and before activation with water. It might be useful to divide each

female’s eggs into multiple clutches, each fertilized with a separate male’s semen.

Question 1.17: Production management structure and process

Study Plan: Section 1.5 (p. 9-10)

HGMP: Section 1.3 (p. 1)

See also the response to Question 1, Attachment 2, on contributions of Technical Team and

the project process.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: See previous comments.

Question 1.18: Related harvest plans

HGMP: Section 2.3 (p. 16-17)

ISRP Reviewer Comments: A rather general description of fisheries that take place on upper

river coho is provided in the section referenced by the respondents, but the only plan referenced

is the fishery management plan of PFMC, which relates to ocean harvest. Of primary concern

however, is the issue of whether the proposal for reestablishment of coho in the mid-Columbia is

consistent with harvest plans that could affect coho reestablishment. The response and the

documents provided do not adequately deal with this issue. The Study Plan identifies factors
16

limiting coho salmon enhancement in the mid-Columbia Basin as “....lower mainstem Columbia

River and ocean harvest rates and smolt mortality within the mainstem Columbia, Yakima and

Wenatchee/Methow river basins.” (page 12). Realistically, the fisheries are likely to be a

significant if not determining factor in the ability to interpret results of the research project, as

well as the ability to establish and maintain self-sustaining populations of coho in the midColumbia tributaries. The reviewer looks for an analysis of how these fisheries might affect the

study, specifically in the monitoring and evaluation phases.

Question 1.19: Constraints and uncertainties, including genetic and ecological risk assessments

and cumulative impacts

D&H 1998: Research results from studies through August 1998 (includes Yakima

basin).

EA: Section 3.3.1.1 (p. 32-33, genetics impacts); section 3.3.1.2 (p. 33-44,

ecological interactions); section 3.6 (p. 61-63, cumulative impacts).

Dunnigan 1999: 1999 research results (includes Yakima basin).

HGMP: Section 2.5 (p. 18-30, ecological interactions); sections 5.3 (p. 35) & 6.3

(p. 38) (broodstock); section 8.6 (p. 40, rearing space); section 9.8 (p. 41,

release numbers); sections 10.3 & 10.4 (p. 44-48, research).

ISRP Reviewer Comments: It is possible for molecular geneticists to follow family lineages of

colonists from this program, as the colonists propagate in space and time. It would be a valuable

insight into how coho evolve. It would be valuable (perhaps even crucial) to evaluating the

success or failure of this effort at reestablishment. It may be this is already part of the program’s

thinking. It’s not clear from reading the HGMP

Question 1.20: Monitoring and evaluation plans, including a genetics monitoring program

HGMP: Section 10 (p. 42-48)

ISRP Reviewer Comments: Monitoring and evaluation plans need to be improved in line with

comments above. See also the recommendation in Question 1.19 relating to the genetic

monitoring.
ISRP 2000-5 Mid-Columbia Coho Review

17

Question 1.21: Conceptual design of the proposed production and monitoring facilities,

including an assessment of the availability and utility of existing facilities

HGMP: Section 1.4 (p.2-6); section 6 (p. 35-37, broodstock collection facilities)

EA: Section 3.4 (p. 44-57 [proposed and alternative sites changed somewhat as project

was modified under the HGMP]).

ISRP Reviewer Comments: Adequately discussed.

Question 1.22: Cost estimates for various components, such as fish culture, facility design and

construction, monitoring and evaluation, and operation and maintenance.

See Attachment 4.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: Cost estimates are provided.
18

ANSWERS TO ATTACHMENT 2:

Questions Identified in the September 1997 Council Policy Document

for FY98 Project Funding

Question 2.1: Has the project been the subject of appropriate independent scientific review in

the past? If so, how has the project responded to the results of independent review?

Response: A program for coho reintroduction has been reviewed and supported in a number

of policy and planning documents, including the Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi-Wa-Kish-Wit (Tribal

Restoration Plan) and the Northwest Power Planning Council's Fish and Wildlife Program

(measures 7.1H, 7.4A, 7.4F, and 7.4O) (see EA, section 1.1, p.1).

Development of the research into the feasibility of coho reintroduction in mid-Columbia

basins has been guided by a Technical Team, consisting of state, federal, and tribal biologists

and managers. Reviewers, researchers, and geneticists from NMFS' Science Center in

Seattle have participated actively in designing appropriate research, and state and federal

fisheries managers have worked with tribal project managers to develop release numbers and

locations for the research that will minimize risks to listed species in the subject basins.

Specifics of the project have evolved since analysis of its effects first began in late 1998 as

part of Bonneville Power Administration's (BPA's) Environmental Assessment (EA) of the

decision to fund the feasibility research. Both Technical Team and public concerns

influenced changes to the proposal. Section 1.5 in the EA (p. 5-6) describes how comments

during scoping of the EA influenced the alternatives and the analysis. Appendix A to the EA

summarizes the concerns and issues that still existed after the draft EA was reviewed by

participating agencies and the public, and provides BPA's responses to those concerns.

In June 1999, NMFS prepared a Biological Opinion on the project, according to its

responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. In its opinion, NMFS made certain

conservation recommendations (BiOp, Section VII, p. 25-26) and set certain terms and

conditions (BiOp, Section IX-C, p. 29-31). A major condition was a requirement for a sixyear plan, the result of which was the HGMP.

The HGMP further refined project activities and represents a consensus of the project's

Technical Team and agency/tribal policy representatives, including NMFS and USFWS

participants. The plan currently is in final official review by NMFS in Washington, D.C. An

opinion is expected in late March or early April 2000.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: The project has been reviewed by those named in the response, but

the reviewers seem to have taken a rather narrow focus, perhaps depending upon their agencies’

particular responsibilities. The cover letter from the tribe (of March 24, 2000) mentions that the

ISRP reviewed the proposal to BPA during the FY 2000 review process. The ISRP felt that there

needed to be more complete justification for shifting the emphasis of the effort from the Methow

River to the Wenatchee River. The documents provided in the present process include more

information on that subject, supporting the shift.
ISRP 2000-5 Mid-Columbia Coho Review

19

Question 2.2: Have project sponsors demonstrated adequately at earlier stages that the project is

consistent with the Council’s policies on artificial/natural production in Section 7 (the specific

concern of the Panel)? If not, can these points be demonstrated now?

Response: See answers to Attachments 1 and 3. Also relevant are responses to Attachment

5.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: The response is too broad to evaluate. However, since the transfer

of coho is mandated by U.S. v Oregon and Washington, a research project to evaluate the results

would seem to be a logical requirement stemming from any Council policy.

Question 2.3: Is the final design of the project consistent with any master plan and preliminary

design?

Response: No major facilities are being constructed for this feasibility phase of the project.

Limited development of acclimation sites is proposed, as described in the EA, section

3.4.1.3, p. 47-57.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: No final design is proposed at this time.

Question 2.4: If not, do the changes raise any underlying scientific questions for further review?

Response: Not applicable.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: Agree.

Question 2.5: Has information about the project or its purposes changed in such a way to raise

new scientific concerns?

Response: Not at this time. Chapter 1 of the EA describes the project need and purposes

(sections 1.1 and 1.2); and the near- and long-term decisions to be made (section 1.4). The

HGMP (section 1.6) further refines these purposes. As described in response to Question 1

in this attachment and in the cover letter, the project has been modified several times to

respond to scientific concerns and will continue to adapt as research contributes answers to

the feasibility questions (see HGMP, section 1.6.2).

ISRP Reviewer Comments: Adequately covered.

Question 2.6: Has the underlying science or the way it is understood changed so as to raise new

scientific issues?

Response: Not at this time. See responses to Questions 1 and 5 in this attachment.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: Agree.

Question 2.7: How technically appropriate are the monitoring and evaluation elements of the

project?
20

Response: The Monitoring and Evaluation program has been developed by the Technical

Team, with substantial review as described in the response to Question 1 in this attachment.

The M & E program is described in detail in section 10 of the HGMP, p. 42-49. The

proposed monitoring and evaluation elements described in the HGMP will be critical to

gauging project performance.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: We recommend some additions as stated in responses above.

Question 2.8: Are there ways to obtain the same production benefits with facilities that are

lower in cost or less permanent, should monitoring and evaluation later indicate that the

effort be abandoned?

Response: Because the project currently is considered research, high-cost, permanent

facilities have not been proposed. Every effort is being made to use existing hatchery

facilities and acclimation sites that already exist or that require minimal development (EA,

section 3.4, p. 44-57; HGMP section 1.4, p. 2-6 and section 6, p. 35-37). BPA's finding of no

significant impact under the EA was based partly on limiting the majority of facilities needed

for feasibility work to those that already exist.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: It is unlikely that lower cost facilities could be developed for this

phase of the project.
ISRP 2000-5 Mid-Columbia Coho Review

21

ANSWERS TO ATTACHMENT 3:

Program Language Identified by the ISRP

Question 3.1: Measure 7.0D: Comprehensive environmental analysis assessing the impacts on

naturally produced salmon of hatchery produced anadromous fish.

Measure 7.0D of the Council’s 1994 Fish and Wildlife Program calls for a

comprehensive environmental analysis assessing the impacts on naturally produced

salmon of hatchery produced anadromous fish. The primary question we would like to

have addressed with regard to the project is, does the environmental assessment

adequately deal with the question of interactions of hatchery-produced salmonids and

naturally spawning salmonids in the Columbia River Basin? If so, how? If not, what are

the potential or posited interactions and impacts?

Response: The EA and FONSI deal with the questions of interactions of hatchery produced

salmonids and naturally spawning salmonids and steelhead in the Columbia Basin for the

feasibility phase of this project. See Mid-Columbia Coho Reintroduction Feasibility Project

EA (p. 33-42) and FONSI (p. 4-6). See also BiOp (p. 14-25); HGMP (section 2.5.2, p. 21-

30); and Dunnigan 1999. The issue of competition between species is a longer-term effect

that is acknowledged as a potential in all these documents. However, because coho returns

are expected to be relatively low for the period of the feasibility studies, and because natural

spawning is planned only for streams with no known listed populations, studies confirming

the significance of the potential likely will be conducted only in the Yakima basin until the

Technical Team determines that numbers of returning adults to other basins would make

such studies necessary and meaningful (HGMP, section 10.4.5.2, p. 47-48).

ISRP Reviewer Comments: The issues are dealt with as far as possible. As for competition,

there is evidence in the literature that competition will occur. While some small increase in total

salmonid production would be expected to occur, reestablishment of coho in the mid-Columbia

tributaries will require that some species make living space available. In this case, it would seem

that steelhead would be the most likely candidate for making this adjustment, since they tend to

occupy the same smaller branches of tributaries (as a general rule). The decision to reestablish

coho is a policy (or legal) decision that appears to have been made. Biologically, there would be

a trade-off.

On page 28 of the HGMP it is stated that “Project participants expect to implement

competition studies when numbers of naturally reproducing fish in the target basin are adequate

to make such monitoring possible.”. It should be recognized that at that point, it might be too late

to turn back, and the study would become nothing but an academic exercise with no practical

application.

Question 3.2: Measure 7.1A: Evaluation of carrying capacity and limiting factors that influence

salmon survival.
22

Measure 7.1A of the Council’s 1994 Fish and Wildlife Program calls for a basin-wide study

on the ecology, carrying capacity, and limiting factors that influence salmon survival. The

primary question we would like to have addressed with regard to this measure is:

Question 2a: How does the project intend to address the issue of carrying capacity within the

watershed(s) into which fish will be placed?

Response: HGMP: Section 1.6.1 (p. 6); section 1.9 (p. 8); section 2.5 (p. 18-20).

ISRP Reviewer Comments: See general comments on monitoring and evaluation, p. 2.

Question 2b: Do these fish originate from the most appropriate native stock? Specifically,

how will the artificial production which is proposed impact natural production?

Response: HGMP: Sections 5 and 6 (p. 32-38) discuss the broodstock to be used.

Because coho have been extirpated from the mid-Columbia region, there is no natural

coho production. Natural donor stocks outside of the Columbia River basin were

considered (i.e. Upper Fraser River basin in British Columbia), but trans-boundary and

disease policy constraints precluded this as a viable possibility.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: The stock chosen appears to be the only option available.

Furthermore, the Management Plan in U.S. v Oregon and Washington appears to call for transfer

of these fish in any case.

Question 2c: What are the impacts on mainstem and ocean harvest? How are these impacts

addressed?

Response: Adult returns are not expected in sufficient numbers to affect harvest during

the period of the feasibility studies. See EA, section 3.6.4 (p. 63); and HGMP, section

2.3 (p. 16-17).

ISRP Reviewer Comments: The reverse effect is most likely, i.e. ocean and mainstem harvest

could adversely affect the project, and to an unknown degree, unless some changes are made in

the monitoring and evaluation steps, as noted in our general comments, p. 3.

Question 3.3: Measure 7.1C: Collection of population status, life history and other data on wild

and naturally spawning populations of salmon and steelhead.

Measure 7.1C calls for the collection of population status, life history and other data on wild

and naturally spawning populations of salmon and steelhead. The primary question we

would like to have addressed with regard to this measure, especially with regard to listed

species is:

Question 3a: What biological baseline information on naturally spawning populations of

salmon and steelhead have been collected, and what high priority populations and

“provisional population units” have been identified?
ISRP 2000-5 Mid-Columbia Coho Review

23

Response: There are no naturally spawning populations of coho in the target basins.

What little is known of their historical life cycle is described in the EA, section 3.2.2.

Information on other high priority species in these basins and their status is discussed in

the EA, section 3.2.3, and the HGMP, section 2.2.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: Adequately discussed.

Question 3b: Does this baseline information include a profile on the genetic and

morphological characteristics of wild and naturally spawning populations? What

characteristics are to be maintained by management actions?

Response: There currently are no naturally spawning coho populations in the target

basins. The HGMP, section 10.4.3 (p. 45-46) describes the genetics monitoring program.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: There are genetic profiles of all of the salmon populations in the

mid-Columbia tributaries, with the exception of coho, and coho have not been in existence

during the time when such profiles were possible. With respect to the genetic monitoring to take

place under this program, the description is sketchy — not very specific about what traits will be

included. It does not review the literature. But the principal topics are there.

Question 3c: What are the limiting factors for wild and naturally spawning populations?

Response: See the EA, section 3.2.1 and the HGMP, section 2.4. In addition, a limiting

factor for establishing naturally spawning coho populations is whether their presence

poses a significant risk to other sensitive species, a major focus of research for this

project. It is also possible that the length of their migration and the number of dams coho

must pass will be limiting factors (Dunnigan 1999, p. 47).

ISRP Reviewer Comments: The Study Plan identifies factors limiting coho salmon

enhancement in the mid-Columbia Basin as “....lower mainstem Columbia River and ocean

harvest rates and smolt mortality within the mainstem Columbia, Yakima and

Wenatchee/Methow river basins.” (page 12). See the General Comment at the beginning of this

ISRP review.

We feel that a more complete discussion of available potential habitat for coho could have been

provided. The method of estimating carrying capacity used in the HGMP tends to be somewhat

detached from ground-truth observations on the fish themselves that might be deduced from

information in Mullan et al., 1992.

Question 3d: What is the natural carrying capacity for the identified populations?

Response: HGMP, section 2.5.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: See general comments p. 2.
24

Question 3e: What monitoring of identified populations of salmon and steelhead is identified

as part of the project?

Response: The M & E program is described in detail in section 10 of the HGMP, p. 42-

49.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: See previous comments.

Question 3f: Are these efforts being coordinated with NMFS? If so, how?

Response: Yes. See response to Question 1, Attachment 2 and the cover letter.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: Adequately considered.

Question 3.4: Measure 7.1F: Systemwide and cumulative impacts of existing and proposed

artificial production projects on the ecology, genetics and other important characteristics of the

Columbia River Basin anadromous and resident fish.

Measure 7.1F calls for a study to address the system wide and cumulative impacts of existing

and proposed artificial production activities on the ecology, genetics and other important

characteristics of Columbia River Basin anadromous and resident fish. This study is to be

coordinated with the genetic impact assessment of Columbia River Basin hatcheries called

for in measure 7.2A.2 of the Council’s program. How does the project's environmental

assessment address the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the proposed production

activities on anadromous and resident fish? Have those effects commonly associated with

cumulative hatchery releases -- density dependent, competition, predation, disease

transmission and genetic effects on other fish in the mainstem and oceanic environments

been addressed? If so how? Have the genetic effects of the project on fish within and

outside the Columbia River Basin been specifically addressed?

Response: The EA, chapter 3, discusses all the effects listed above (genetic effects,

including straying [section 3.3.1.1]; competition, predation, disease transmission [section

3.3.1.2]; cumulative effects, including migration corridor impacts [section 3.6]). Ecological

interactions are further discussed in the BiOp (p. 14-25, including oceanic impacts); the

HGMP (section 2.5); D&H 1998; and Dunnigan 1999.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: Adequately considered.
ISRP 2000-5 Mid-Columbia Coho Review

25

Answers to Attachment 4:

Fiscal Questions Relating to the Step 3 Review

1. What are the final cost estimates for Fiscal Year 1999 through 2008 for construction,

operation and maintenance, and monitoring and evaluation for the project?

Response: See tables below.

2. Are these cost estimates different form preliminary design estimates? If so, please explain.

Response: Not applicable; see below.

3. Has a value engineering review been performed by BPA to ensure that cost-effective

alternate measures are not overlooked? What are the results of the review?

Response: See "Response" under "Schedule for Development" below.

(Project #9604000 Evaluate the Feasibility and Risks of Coho Reintroduction in MidColumbia) Project2

(Version – March 24, 2000)

Schedule for Development

Facility Step 1

Completed

Step 2

Completed

Step 3

Completed

Final

Design

Completed

Construction

Initiated

Construction

Completed

Operation

Begins

Element 1

Element 2

Element ...

Response: The table above is not filled in because the project has not yet determined if it is feasible to

re-establish coho in the mid-Columbia. No proposal exists at this time for a central coho hatchery

supplementation facility or other facilities requiring significant design or construction efforts.

However, costs of such a facility in today's dollars are estimated below, in the event the project

determines that re-establishing coho would be feasible.

Estimated Cost Expenditures and Future Needs

 

2 It would be helpful if this form is completed and provided in an electronic version. This draft form will be

provided upon request.
26

Response: The future costs estimated below assume that the feasibility phase of the project determines

that the project will be successful at re-establishing coho within acceptable risk parameters. The

estimates assume that a central coho hatchery supplementation facility would need to be constructed;

however, a full range of alternative ways to implement coho reintroduction would be evaluated in an

EIS that likely would be prepared on such a proposal.

Planning so far has cost ($225,000). Construction of the (acclimation/release sites and

modifications to Winthrop and Entiat NFHs) is estimated to cost ($944,000). Construction of a new

central coho hatchery in the mid-Columbia is estimated to cost ($8,500,000). Annual operation and

maintenance costs after all facilities (including a new central hatchery) are fully developed would cost

about ($950,000). Monitoring and evaluation is estimated to cost about ($580,000) annually. These

cost figures are based on estimates from project planning. Cost of (preliminary) design for the

(acclimation and central hatchery) is estimated to be about ($105,000).

Costs to Date3

FY 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

Planning NA NA NA NA NA NA $.03 $.03 $.025 $.140

Land

Purchase

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

ConstructionNA NA NA NA NA NA NA $.05 $.174 $.125

O&M NA NA NA NA NA NA $.075 $.099 $.175 $.190

M&E NA NA NA NA NA NA $.0385 $.145 $.250 $.245

Future Costs4

FY 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

Planning $.01 $.205 $.195 $.405 $.30 $.205 $.06 $.055 $.035 $.025

Land

Purchase

NA NA NA NA $.90 $.250 NA NA NA NA

Construction$.02 $.275 $.250 $.02 $.03 $4.55 $4.02 NA NA NA

O&M $.03 $.9135 $.992 $.9265 1.2555 $1.409 1.6665 $.869 $.803 $.7605

M&E $.04 $.4935 $.494 $.5365 $.5815 $.642 $.9095 $.632 $.633 $.6305

 

3 Costs are in millions of dollars.

4 Costs are in millions of dollars.
ISRP 2000-5 Mid-Columbia Coho Review

27

ISRP Reviewer Comments regarding Attachment 4 questions: Estimated costs are provided.

Responses to Attachment 5:

Policies of the Artificial Production Review, Report and

Recommendations (Document 99-15)

5.1. The manner of use and the value of artificial production must be considered in the

context of the environment in which it will be used.

The analyses in the EA, BiOp, and HGMP demonstrate that project sponsors and the

Technical Team have considered effects to other aquatic species and to terrestrial species as

well as physical impacts of site development and improvements.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: Agree.

5.2. Artificial production must be implemented within an experimental, adaptive management

design that includes an aggressive program to evaluate benefits and address scientific

uncertainties.

The project history demonstrates adaptive management at work (see cover letter for this

submittal). The M&E program as described in the HGMP indicates the mechanisms by

which project managers and decision-makers will continue to consider and evaluate

information to further adapt the project as necessary.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: Monitoring and evaluation need improvement as previously noted.

The institutional mechanisms for adapting the program that should occur in light of monitoring

and evaluation are not clear. The decision-makers are not identified. It is not specified how the

information from the monitoring program will be organized and made available and to whom,

nor how or when the program will be revised, redirected, or otherwise modified.

5.3. Hatcheries must be operated in a manner that recognizes that they exist within ecological

systems whose behavior is constrained by larger-scale basin, regional and global factors.

Because the project as currently constituted is using existing hatcheries with already

established mandates and goals, it is a given that operations devoted to this project are

constrained by the existing ecological environment and by larger-scale basin, regional, and

global factors.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: The project neglects the larger-scale effect of harvest on its

outcome. Improvements in monitoring and evaluation are needed, as previously specified. The
28

possible effects of shifting a portion of lower river production to the upper river is an element

that deserved discussion in an ecological context beyond the discussions of predation and

competition that are provided.

5.4. A diversity of life history types and species needs to be maintained in order to sustain a

system of populations in the face of environmental variation.

If successful at meeting its overall goal of re-establishing a species that previously occupied

this environment while minimizing risks to other species, the project would increase the

diversity of species in the mid-Columbia area.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: Agree. See previous comments.

5.5. Naturally selected populations should provide the model for successful artificially reared

populations, in regard to population structure, mating protocol, behavior, growth,

morphology, nutrient cycling, and other biological characteristics.

The HGMP defines the practices that are intended to achieve the project's long-term goal of

re-establishing a self-sustaining, naturally reproducing coho population.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: No such options for use of naturally selected populations are

available in this situation.

5.6. The entities authorizing or managing an artificial production facility or program should

explicitly identify whether the artificial propagation product is intended for the purpose of

augmentation, mitigation, restoration, preservation, research, or some combination of those

purposes for each population of fish addressed.

The artificially produced fish are intended for research into the feasibility of restoring

populations of coho into areas from which they have been extirpated.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: While the documents attempt to classify this as a research project,

they also acknowledge that the long-term goal is to restore harvestable populations. It therefore

represents a combination of restoration, augmentation, and research. The research component

described in these documents is an essential component of any such attempt at restoration or

augmentation.
ISRP 2000-5 Mid-Columbia Coho Review

29

5.7. Decisions on the use of the artificial production tool need to be made in the context of

deciding on fish and wildlife goals, objectives and strategies at the subbasin and province

levels.

The EA and the HGMP indicate that the feasibility studies have been planned in the context

of broader regional goals, objectives, and strategies. The project's managers, who include the

members of the multi-agency Technical Team, will continue to respond to overall sub-basin

and regional issues and concerns.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: In the present case, regional managers appear to have agreed upon

this project as an initial step. It is not too early for them to begin to consider the possible effects

of success on regulation of the harvest of the mixed coho stocks (in the ocean, mainstem, and

tributaries) in order to permit adequate numbers of spawners from this project to reach the midColumbia tributaries.

5.8. Appropriate risk management needs to be maintained in using the tool of artificial

propagation.

The HGMP specifies the full range of risk management goals, objectives, practices, and

monitoring to which this project is committed.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: The risks are identified and discussed.

5.9. Production for harvest is a legitimate management objective of artificial production, but

to minimize adverse impacts on natural populations associated with harvest management of

artificially produced populations, harvest rates and practices must be dictated by the

requirements to sustain naturally spawning populations.

The HGMP indicates that the project's long-term vision is to re-establish self-sustaining coho

populations in harvestable numbers; however, the near-term goal is simply to see if selfsustaining populations can be re-established.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: See previous comments on this subject.

5.10. Federal and other legal mandates and obligations for fish protection, mitigation, and

enhancement must be fully addressed.

This project is being proposed and funded under auspices of the Northwest Power Planning

and Conservation Act, with its mandate to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife

resources in the Columbia River basin. It has been and continues to be subject to all

processes and reviews (including the current three-step review) required by the Northwest

Power Planning Council.
30

The Endangered Species Act, as it applies to listed species both in and outside the basin, is

addressed through the EA, the HGMP, BiOp, and ongoing consultations with and

participation by NMFS and USFWS in project planning and implementation.

Other federal and state mandates and concerns, such as USFS and WDFW concerns with

sockeye salmon in the Wenatchee, are addressed through the participation in the Technical

Team of representatives of all federal, state, and tribal entities with responsibilities in the

project areas.

The EA fully documents the project's compliance with federal and other legal mandates.

ISRP Reviewer Comments: This is a matter that is up to the federal entities to decide.

________________________________________

w:\em\ww\isrp\1 final isrp reports\isrp 2000-5 mid col coho.doc