Independent Scientific Review Panel

for the Northwest Power Planning Council

Final Review

of

Fiscal Year 2001 Project Proposals

for the Columbia River Gorge

and Inter-Mountain Provinces

ISRP 2000-9

December 1, 2000

Inter-Mountain Reviewers

Charles C. Coutant

Jack Griffith

Susan S. Hanna

Nancy Huntly

Lyman McDonald

Richard R. Whitney

Ray White

Richard N. Williams

Columbia River Gorge Reviewers

Jack Griffith

Susan S. Hanna

Brian Riddell

William Smoker

Bruce Ward

Richard N. Williams
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

 Columbia River Gorge Province Inter-Mountain Province
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

i

Independent Scientific Review Panel

Review of Fiscal Year 2001 Project Proposals for the Columbia

River Gorge and Inter-Mountain Provinces

INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................................1

GENERAL ISSUES .......................................................................................................................................................1

SUBBASIN SUMMARIES AND PLANS.......................................................................................................................... 1

INFORMATION TRANSFER........................................................................................................................................... 4

ECOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES IN MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................... 5

ISRP REVIEW PROCESS .........................................................................................................................................6

COLUMBIA RIVER GORGE PROPOSALS .......................................................................................................9

ISRP DISAGREES WITH CBFWA: ISRP FUNDABLE AND CBFWA LOWER PRIORITY OR DO NOT FUND .... 9

ISRP DISAGREES WITH CBFWA: ISRP DO NOT FUND AND CBFWA HIGH PRIORITY OR RECOMMENDED

ACTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 12

ISRP CONDITIONAL FUNDABLE RECOMMENDATION - CBFWA HIGH PRIORITY OR RECOMMENDED

ACTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 18

Klickitat Fisheries Program Recommendation ...............................................................................................18

Other Gorge Proposals with ISRP Conditional Fundable Recommendations..........................................27

ISRP AND CBFWA AGREE: ISRP FUNDABLE AND CBFWA HIGH PRIORITY OR RECOMMENDED ACTION

...................................................................................................................................................................................... 33

Hood River Production Program.......................................................................................................................34

ISRP FUNDABLE OR NOT REVIEWED AND NO COMPARISON WITH CBFWA RECOMMENDATIONS: POLICY

ISSUES........................................................................................................................................................................... 49

ISRP AND CBFWA AGREE: DO NOT FUND ......................................................................................................... 53

INTER-MOUNTAIN PROPOSALS ......................................................................................................................54

ISRP DISAGREES WITH CBFWA: ISRP FUNDABLE AND CBFWA RECOMMENDED ACTION OR DO NOT

FUND............................................................................................................................................................................ 54

Mule Deer Projects:.............................................................................................................................................56

ISRP DISAGREES WITH CBFWA: ISRP DO NOT FUND AND CBFWA HIGH PRIORITY OR RECOMMENDED

ACTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 60

ISRP CONDITIONAL FUNDABLE RECOMMENDATION - CBFWA HIGH PRIORITY OR RECOMMENDED

ACTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 72

ISRP AND CBFWA AGREE: ISRP FUNDABLE AND CBFWA HIGH PRIORITY............................................... 77

ISRP FUNDABLE OR NOT REVIEWED AND NO COMPARISON WITH CBFWA RECOMMENDATIONS: POLICY

ISSUES........................................................................................................................................................................... 94

ISRP AND CBFWA AGREE: DO NOT FUND ......................................................................................................... 96

TABLE OF PROPOSALS...................................................................................................................................... 102

INDEX OF PROPOSALS BY PROJECT NUMBER..................................................................................... 111
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

1

Introduction

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

submitted for funding in the Columbia River Gorge and Inter-Mountain provinces. It

contains identification of general issues, an overview of the evaluation process, and final

recommendations and detailed comments for each proposal submitted. Each ISRP

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

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

This marks the end of the ISRP’s duties in the first iteration of the provincial review

process, and although the process can use some fine-tuning, the ISRP is enthusiastic

about the new approach. The ISRP found the addition of subbasin summaries, site visits,

project sponsor presentations, and a formal response loop to be a major improvement in

the peer review process.

General Issues

During the review, several cross-cutting issues were identified. The issues are included

here to initiate regional discussion and inform future provincial reviews.

Subbasin Summaries and Plans

Subbasin summaries are especially helpful to the ISRP review process. The following

observations are intended to improve the next round of subbasin summary drafting and

the development of subbasin plans, and inform the Council’s upcoming program

amendments regarding provincial goals and objectives.

Communication and Coordination. The connection between proposals and subbasin

summaries needs to be communicated more effectively. Some proposals made explicit

reference to the priorities contained in subbasin summaries, which was helpful to

reviewers. This cross-referencing could be further used to the advantage of planning and

reviewing. Subbasin plans should not simply list needs and objectives collected from

existing projects, but should instead be the leading documents that establish subbasin

goals and objectives to which projects can respond.

Quantitative Assessment. The most notable omission from subbasin summaries and

proposals was a strong quantitative basis for biological and habitat assessments.

Quantitative assessments should be the fundamental basis of any production and habitat

restoration plan. Specifically, stock assessment and monitoring information to guide

work in fisheries projects (time series on escapement, catch, fecundity, smolt yield, age

structure, survival during freshwater and marine life stages, etc.) is lacking, as is a

coordinated process of watershed assessment, prescription, rehabilitation, and monitoring

and evaluation. In addition, hatchery operations for harvest management versus

supplementation were confused, poorly justified or unsupported by available data. Even

incidental harvest is unjustifiable if the stock is below replacement levels based on stock

assessment.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

2

Limiting Factors. Often the “limiting factors” mentioned in subbasin summaries were

stated at the general level of human activities or human-generated processes, e.g., mining,

logging, overgrazing, or agriculture. Subbasin summaries and proposals should identify

detrimental human activities but need to go to a deeper level and describe how these

activities limit fish or wildlife production through their effects on water quality, water

quantity, sediment flow, streamside vegetation, etc. Specific biological or physical

factors amenable to near term management actions should be described, as should

actions that could address the ultimate causal factors.

Timely Opportunities. Subbasin summaries and proposals could benefit from further

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

mitigation often depends on the market availability of specific properties. In other cases,

there is an unusual opportunity to study a population or process of import or interest.

Proposals to specifically capitalize on such opportunities should be encouraged. The

Phase One Amendments to the Fish and Wildlife Program provide one mechanism to

take advantage of timely opportunities. The amendment creates a trust fund for the

purchase of land and water rights that will provide the flexibility needed to respond

quickly to market availability of land or water rights. Acquisition proposals will be

reviewed according to criteria developed by the Council and approved by the ISRP. In

past reviews, many proposals lacked sufficient detail, a problem that could be remedied

by including a description of the type of detail required in the call for acquisition

proposals.

Monitoring and Evaluation. Proposals must indicate plans for monitoring and

evaluation of project performance, and, for ongoing projects, include summaries of

monitoring data, in figures and tables even if the monitoring is conducted by another

project. The ISRP is not recommending major research level data collection for all

projects. Rather, we envision use of cost-effective procedures that can be easily replicated

by new personnel. Potential savings may be realized by monitoring and evaluating at the

basin, province, or subbasin scale. Proponents of related projects should collectively

design monitoring and evaluation activities. For example, the Lake Roosevelt Fisheries

Evaluation Program (Project #199404300) in the Inter-Mountain Province is a

cooperative project whose objectives include monitoring and evaluation of the

performance of hatchery fish in Lake Roosevelt. This project could provide monitoring

and evaluation data for a number of other projects.

The ISRP envisions long term monitoring and evaluation with the following

characteristics:

1. Data are unbiased.

2. Monitoring is cost-effective.

3. Responsibility for monitoring and evaluation is specifically assigned.

4. Data have long-term in addition to immediate management value.

5. Data are oriented toward detecting changes and trends rather than cause and effect.

6. Methods are not changed unless techniques overlap.

7. Reports and databases document methods, times, and location.

8. Reports are issued regularly and on time.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

3

Adaptive Management: Proposals often list adaptive management as a monitoring and

evaluation component. Despite the frequent use of the term, much project activity does

not qualify as adaptive management because the effects of alternative management

actions cannot be adequately compared. Most projects call for a single management

action and an evaluation of its result, rather than the comparison of alternatives in an

experimental setting with treatments and controls. Observational studies are unlikely to

yield adequate information for adaptive management unless they are replicated over time

and space. In some projects, the monitoring and evaluation components focus on detailed

process models, which alone are unlikely to effectively deal with temporal and spatial

variability and lead to useful information for adaptive management.

Provincial Planning: The NWPPC’s proposal development and review process needs to

consider development of provincial programs and the fit of subbasin plans and individual

subbasin proposals into provincial programs. Provincial objectives should guide

development of the program at the subbasin scale. Considering activities such as

monitoring programs at the provincial scale could realize cost savings and facilitate

coordination. The Council, BPA, and/or CBFWA could guide the planning process with

the help of a technical team of subbasin representatives contributing the findings of

activity-based workshops. Province-level planning will assist in the development of an

activity-based program that is consensus-based, logical, and equitable. Within-province

differences in proposal submission processes and resource management could be

collectively resolved through such a planning process.

Examples of Province Level Planning: Province-level planning workshops should

assist in the development of standard procedures for cross-cutting issues like stock

assessment, supplementation, harvest management, vegetation sampling, and habitat

restoration. Two hypothetical examples follow:

1. Test or Demonstration Site for Supplementation or Stock Assessment: The

Hood River may be a good site for evaluating supplementation or for monitoring

freshwater and marine survival. At this site, every immigrant fish has the potential to

be monitored and the number of emigrating smolts can be estimated.

2. Test or Demonstration Site for Watershed Restoration: A detailed plan of

watershed assessment, rehabilitation prescription, monitoring and evaluation was

provided for the Wind River. Given the level of monitoring at this subbasin, other

subbasins may require less detailed monitoring. Province-level Planning Workshops

could assist in providing standard watershed restoration procedures for issues like

stock assessment, supplementation, harvest management, habitat restoration,

vegetation sampling, etc.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

4

Planning Workshops. The ISRP recommends a series of planning workshops to assist

with the development of subbasin goals, objectives, and strategies consistent with those

of the province and basin. Subbasin plans must be consistent with the goals, objectives,

and strategies for the province. The proposal planning and development process has

evolved into a format that is now understood and reasonably easy to follow and evaluate.

However the review of proposals made it clear that communication among subbasins and

within subbasins could be improved. Directed workshops would enhance

communication, helping the proposal development and review process by coordinating

essential activities and avoiding duplicated effort.

An activity-based workshop approach could be of great benefit in improving

understanding and communication, if not also in redirecting projects. At the provincial

level, a workshop approach should also be used to coordinate subbasin efforts.

As an example, an activity-based workshop in fisheries might include:

• stock and habitat assessment

• habitat protection and rehabilitation

• harvest management

• hatchery production for recreational and commercial harvest

• supplementation to rebuild wild populations

Within each of the above categories, tasks might be defined as:

• operation and maintenance

• monitoring and evaluation

• research and development

• related tasks

Standard approaches, definitions, and criteria should be developed in the workshops and

used within a subbasin and province, and perhaps over the entire basin. Standard

operating procedures are particularly important for monitoring and evaluation at the

subbasin, province, and basin levels. For example, a workshop on supplementation

would define the goals, definitions, standardized methods, measurement variables,

knowledge gaps, and areas for research and development, including a review of

appropriate models to test assumptions and responses about supplementation, and sites

where these might be testable. Another example would be to develop guidelines for the

use of electrofishing in fish stock assessments.

Information Transfer

Data Repository. In principle, all data obtained through public funds should be

available to the public. Projects should identify their plans making data and meta-data

available for public use. If there are restrictions on data use (e.g., locations of sensitive

species or a restricted-use time period for preparation of reports and manuscripts), then

the restrictions should be specified and justified. StreamNet may be an acceptable

database for electronic storage and retrieval of project data collected in the Province.

However, the region appears to be moving to a distributed system where data and metadata are made available through multiple sites on the World Wide Web.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

5

Publication of results. In addition to publication of annual reports, project sponsors

should publish results of their projects in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Fish and

Wildlife Program research results are of interest and use to the entire scientific

community of the region.

Ecological Principles in Management

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

that stocking hatchery trout will “buffer” (reduce) harvest of wild trout in the same water

body—perhaps through some process of diluting fishing pressure. Nowhere was this idea

substantiated with data from projects or outside studies. On the contrary, stockinginduced overharvest of wild fish in mixed-stock fisheries is well known. In absence of

supporting evidence, the ISRP recommends that the buffering idea be dropped.

Density as a Limiting Factor. Density limits in the Bonneville Pool and lower

Columbia River need to be addressed as a potential factor limiting salmon productivity.

Without assessment of stocks including survival in the pool and lower river, and without

consideration of density as a potential limiting factor, managers may inappropriately

increase smolt releases to the detriment of future cohorts of native salmon. Project

sponsors in several programs contemplate a marked increase of hatchery production as a

method of supplementation without apparent consideration of the detrimental effect of

this increased density of salmon smolts on the survival of native salmon.

Predator/Prey Relationships: Introduced non-native fishes, such as walleye, bass and

catfish are at times and places significant predators on salmonids, as are the native

northern pikeminnow. The first three species provide significant sport fisheries that are in

some cases encouraged by management agencies through stocking, while measures to

reduce northern pikeminnow populations are in place throughout the mainstem. These

species and their management should be taken into account in province and subbasin

summaries. One proposal estimated that 10-20% of hatchery planted kokanee were

consumed by walleye within a few days. Obviously, the success of resident fish projects

can be seriously affected by such predation.

Grazing/Fencing Strategies: New strategies are needed to deal with livestock grazing

effects. Fencing appears to be the only grazing control method in Intermountain projects.

“Stream-parallel” fencing can be effective but costly, and as revealed in at least one

project narrative, requires ongoing maintenance. Managers should avail themselves of the

information on the various grazing and fencing schemes that have been developed over

the last 20 years in the interior West. Perhaps this could be facilitated by a BPAsponsored basinwide workshop on the topic.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

6

ISRP Review Process

Project evaluation and selection occurs in several steps. The ISRP review steps are

described below.

Proposal Review

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

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

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

least three ISRP/Peer Review Group members reviewed each proposal in detail based on

the ISRP review criteria and generated comments and scores prior to the proposal review

workshop. These scores and comments were not made available to the project sponsors

at the workshop, but were used by the ISRP to scope questions for the site visits and

workshop presentations.

Project Review Workshop

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

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

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

Evaluation (ISRP only; one day).

a) Site Visits

The first two days of the workshops were dedicated to province tours by the ISRP and

CBFWA review teams. The purpose of the tours was to give the reviewers a basic

understanding of the ecological conditions and limiting factors in the province so that

the projects were placed in their geographic and ecological context. In addition, the

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

artificial production projects in each province. The ISRP teams greatly appreciated

the lively, informal exchanges and the chance to see the landscape and many project

sites first-hand. These and the oral presentations were invaluable in making clear the

nature of the projects.

b) Project Presentations

The third and fourth day of the workshops were dedicated to project presentations.

Each set of subbasin presentations began with a presentation of the subbasin

summaries. Each project proponent was given the opportunity to provide a concise

presentation of their proposal. Presentations were expected to address the proposal

review criteria including the relation of the proposed project to the subbasin

summary. Following each presentation, there was an opportunity for a question and

answer session between the reviewers and the project proponents.

The presentations and question and answer sessions were useful in clarifying matters

left unclear in the written proposals. However, the quality of the presentations varied.

For future province site visits, the ISRP will work with CBFWA and Council staff to

develop guidelines that outline the elements of an effective project presentation and

that emphasize the continuing importance of well-written proposals.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

7

c) Review Team Evaluation Meeting

On the last day of the workshop, the ISRP review team met by itself to share

impressions of the review, compare results with standard evaluation criteria, and

reach consensus on project scores and comments.

ISRP Final Report: Response Review and Comparison with CBFWA Prioritization

On October 6, the ISRP issued a preliminary report based on findings from the proposal

review and workshop (ISRP 2000-8; www.nwppc.org/isrp/isrp_2000-8.pdf). In that report, the

ISRP found that 16 proposals were scientifically sound, offered benefits to fish and

wildlife and did not require any further ISRP review. Thirty-six proposals were

recommended as fundable only if the project sponsor adequately responded to the ISRP’s

concerns, and 9 projects were recommended as “do not fund; a response is not

warranted.” One project was not amenable to scientific review. Project sponsors were

provided several weeks to respond to the ISRP’s comments.

The ISRP received responses to the 36 projects for which a response was requested and

to several projects for which a response was not requested. At a minimum, the three

ISRP reviewers who reviewed the original proposal reviewed the response related to that

proposal. The ISRP met and discussed the responses and CBFWA’s priority

recommendation and related comments for each proposal (see CBFWA’s Draft Fiscal

Year 2001-2003 Columbia Gorge and Inter-Mountain Province Work Plans, November

15, 2000; www.cbfwf.org/province.htm).

Review Results

Taking into account the original proposals, the workshop, the response, and CBFWA

prioritization, the ISRP review teams reached consensus recommendations and developed

comments on each of the 62 proposals submitted. The ISRP’s final and preliminary

recommendations and a brief description of each proposal are provided below. In cases

where the ISRP and CBFWA recommendations differ, CBFWA comments from its

FY01-03 draft annual implementation work plans are also provided.1 The Gorge province

is presented first followed by the Inter-Mountain. Within each province, the proposals are

arranged by level of ISRP agreement with the CBFWA prioritization. 2 This format was

chosen to aid the Council in identifying potential issues.

 

1

 CBFWA’s comments include those made by CBFWA reviewers of the proposal and managers on the

budget, and were not drafted for inclusion in the ISRP’s report. These comments are included because they

are what the ISRP reviewed as it compared its recommendations with CBFWA’s.

2

The following definitions were used for the CBFWF subbasin prioritization:

• Urgent - These projects or tasks within a project are of urgent need. They will either have a direct impact

on survival or protection of a key species or will protect investments made in this subbasin. These projects

should be able to demonstrate an immediate cost if not funded (loss of habitat, impact on a population,

etc.). An example might also include ongoing O+M costs.

• High Priority - These projects or tasks within a project are high priority within the subbasin. The project

addresses a specific need within the subbasin summaries.

• Recommended Actions - These are good projects that cannot demonstrate a significant loss by not

funding this year. These projects should be funded, but under a limited budget could be delayed

temporarily without significant loss.

• Do not fund - These projects are either technically inadequate or do not address a need within the

subbasin summaries. These projects may be inappropriate for BPA funding.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

8

The ISRP recommendations that differ with CBFWA’s are presented first. These

disagreements come in two forms:

1) the ISRP recommends that a proposal is fundable and of higher priority than the

CBFWA prioritization (2 in Gorge and 3 Inter-Mountain); and

2) the ISRP recommends that a proposal is not fundable but is recommended as high

priority or a recommended action by CBFWA (4 in Gorge and 3 Inter-Mountain).

Following the disagreements, the ISRP recommendations that agree or partially agree

with CBFWA’s are provided. These fall into three categories:

1) the ISRP conditionally agrees with CBFWA that a proposal is fundable and either is

high priority or a recommended action (8 in Gorge and 3 Inter-Mountain)

2) the ISRP agrees with CBFWA that a proposal is fundable and either is high priority or

a recommended action (14 Gorge and 15 Inter-Mountain) ; and

3) the ISRP agrees with CBFWA that a proposal is not scientifically sound or does not

offer benefits to fish and wildlife, and is not fundable (1 Gorge and 5 Inter-Mountain).

In addition, several proposals or comparisons with CBFWA’s prioritization raised policy

issues that were beyond the ISRP’s purview (3 Gorge and 1 Inter-Mountain). These are

presented before the “Do Not Funds.”

Figure 1. ISRP and CBFWA Comparison of Recommendations 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Disagree - ISRP

Higher Priority

Disagree - ISRP

Do Not Fund

Partially Agree

- Conditional

Fund

Agree - Fund Agree - Do Not

Fund

Policy Issue

Gorge

Inter-Mountain
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

9

Columbia River Gorge Proposals

ISRP Disagrees with CBFWA: ISRP Fundable and CBFWA Lower Priority or

Do Not Fund

ProjectID: 21004

Determination of difficult passage areas by examining swimming activity of upriver

migrating salmon implanted with EMG transmitters

Sponsor: PNNL

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Klickitat

Short Description: Examine the swimming activity and energy use of salmon and

steelhead as they ascend areas of poor fish passage (Lyle and Castile Falls) to identify

areas that provide special difficulty.

Sponsor Request FY01: $212,929

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $632,929

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Disagree with CBFWA priority.

This is a high priority project that deserves funding.

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable, the response is adequate although minimal. The ISRP comments were briefly

addressed and a revised proposal was submitted, which included the additional tasks

(Castille Falls, distribution in the subbasin) that the ISRP suggested. The ISRP believes

the project is a high priority project for the Klickitat subbasin and will provide useful

information for the design and management of fishways at Lyle and Castille Falls. The

project is logical and should precede the decisions on the fishway work on Lyle and

Castile falls. The project should do more than fine tune the Lyle Falls fishway proposal.

It should provide information on whether the fishway improvements are indeed required

and at what times of year (i.e., what flow conditions). Additionally the technique will

provide valuable information on the upstream movement of migrating salmonids and

important refuge habitats. The approach could have basinwide applicability on assessing

fish passage at different sites.

CBFWA Comments from DAIWP: Although this project provides a very interesting line

of research, the co-managers are not convinced that the results will lend themselves to

assist decision making on the river. The fish passage areas identified in the proposal are

dynamic according to flow levels and results may be difficult to interpret. This would be

an interesting project, but management and other activities on the Klickitat River cannot

wait on the results from this project, particularly since it is unknown if the results will be

useful. This proposal has not been fully developed to permit an adequate review.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

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

strongly support a 1 to 3 year program. This project is innovative. The proposal would be

appropriate for submittal in the innovative process, as is, because of the proposed

sequencing of actions it is not well integrated with the subbasin effort.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

10

While this is a very brief proposal, it is innovative and provides an opportunity to

critically examine the fish passage problems identified in the Klickitat River. The stated

objectives are actually tasks, rather than target achievements for the work; and are very

limited relative to the potential information to be gained from these tagged salmon

(probably because the proposal is submitted for only one year). The review panel

supports the one-year examination, but would strongly recommend re-submission of the

proposal to include funds for tracking the fish up-river. Such a program would identify

rate of movement, holding areas, and ultimately spawning locations.

In a logical progression of project development, however, there is an obvious concern

about the submission of this project and the KFP request for $3.2 million to build a

fishway. If there is concern about the degree of fish passage problems in the Klickitat,

then this work should be undertaken before KFP proceeds with major expenditures on

fish passage, etc. However, if at Lyle Falls, the decision has been made to proceed with

construction of the fishway and broodstock capture site, then this investigation could be

moved up-river to Castile Falls. From our discussions, we concluded that there was a

definite need for this project to be more integrated with the KFP projects. For example, if

the results of this study show that passage is not a problem at this site, will the

construction projects at the falls be altered?

ProjectID: 21016

Accelerate the Application of Integrated Fruit Management to Reduce the Risk of

Pesticide Pollution in Fifteenmile Sub-basin Orchards

Sponsor: Wy'East RC&D

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Fifteenmile

Short Description: Accelerate the implementation of Integrated Fruit Management in

orchards that use new generation pesticides and sprayer technology to reduce the risk of

pollution to land and aquatic resources from pesticides affecting salmon and steelhead.

Sponsor Request FY01: $308,772

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $738,457

CBFWA Recommendation: Do Not Fund

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Disagree, this proposal is

fundable.

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable, the response was adequate. If fish and wildlife managers are truly concerned

about water quality and the application of broad-spectrum pesticides, this kind of project

could be a very important experiment and applicable to many watersheds in the Basin,

specifically in the Yakima and Hood subbasin where orchards are prevalent. A pilot

project of this nature, especially if it included more specific ties to water quality and fish,

could provide useful management information in the basin. Considering the results of

recent studies and literature, the ISRP expects that concerns over the detrimental effects

of pesticides will become a greater issue in the Basin. We agree with CBFWA that this

proposal should include a more detailed monitoring and evaluation plan to measure

benefits to fish and wildlife.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

11

Whether an agriculture project of this kind should be funded through BPA is a policy

issue beyond the purview of the ISRP. However, the proposal solicitation should provide

guidance on the spectrum of funding available or not available for such projects.

CBFWA Comments from DAIWP: This project proposes to develop a data management

system that would assist farmers in applying pesticides on orchards in the Fifteenmile

and Threemile subbasins. This project would purchase several weather stations on

selected orchards throughout the subbasin and fund the development of centralized

processing software to coordinate the data collection and analysis. The data would then

be available to all farmers in the area via the Internet to assist in managing the

application of pesticides. The fish and wildlife managers did not see the direct link to fish

and wildlife benefits in this subbasin. Most of the orchards are not located in the riparian

areas in the Fifteenmile Subbasin and the sponsors showed no tie to providing data and

information to local fish and wildlife managers. Pesticides were not identified in the

Fifteenmile Creek and Oregon tributaries to the Columbia River between Hood River and

The Dalles Dam Summary as a major limiting factor. No monitoring and evaluation was

proposed to measure benefits to fish and wildlife.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable only if the proposers make a convincing case of benefits to fish and wildlife

and a closer tie to the Fish and Wildlife Program (FWP). The presentation made a better

case than the proposal and the proposers were forward thinking. The agriculture

experiment station should be a source of assistance for these proposers.

This proposal describes an approach to reducing non-point source pollution resulting

from the application of orchard pesticides. It is a problem relevant to the water quality

aspects of fish habitat. The proposal does a good job laying out objectives and

comprehensive tasks, and takes care to include criteria for success and timelines in the

methods. Adaptive management is included through explicit plans for modifications of

procedures. The proposal establishes connections to other non-FWP projects, but does

not tie the proposed work into other projects within the FWP.

The proposal places an emphasis on collaboration with growers, outreach and education.

This is a real strength of the proposal. The main question has to do not with the relevance

of this work, but with who should pay for it. This might be more appropriate as part of a

more collaborative project that would include specific assessment of a potential problem

for resident and anadromous fish.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

12

ISRP Disagrees with CBFWA: ISRP Do Not Fund and CBFWA High Priority

or Recommended Action

ProjectID: 199304001

15-Mile Creek Steelhead Smolt Production

Sponsor: ODFW

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Fifteenmile

Short Description: Estimate subbasin smolt production for the wild population of winter

steelhead in Fifteenmile Creek and collect information on selected life history and

biological characteristics of downstream migrant fishes endemic to Fifteenmile Creek.

Sponsor Request FY01: $33,704

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $92,204

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Disagree, Do Not Fund

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Do not fund. The proposers did not respond to the ISRP concern about adequacy of

mark/recapture design. Methods entailing a single trap and upstream release of

transported marked fish are biased and imprecise. The ISRP is concerned that the

assessment information the proposers are collecting will not be adequate in estimation of

smolt yield, and of limited value without the addition of data on adult escapement, and

that continuing the current program may give misleading or highly uncertain data. The

ISRP recognizes the need for some of the intended information for a useful stock status

assessment, but the current plan is not sound.

CBFWA Comments from DAIWP: Demographic information is being collected through

this program on the steelhead smolts. Due to the limited number of outmigrants, PIT

tags are not being used due to low probability of recovery. The ISRP recommends

modifying the scope of this project, which would exceed the needs for the Fifteenmile

subbasin at this time. The project provides the foundation of all fish monitoring in the

Fifteenmile subbasin for all activities and therefore is considered urgent at this time. If

this data were lost, the ability to measure the success of any project in this subbasin

would be lost.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

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

improvements from the fencing and water acquisition projects suggest that the

productivity of the system for winter steelhead may improve for the future. The proposed

budget for a screw trap may be necessary for stock assessment; but reviewers are

concerned about the adequacy of the proposed stock assessment. Proposers do not seem

to consider gathering information about survival outside the basin (PIT tags), nor do they

consider the value of demographic sampling (scales for aging) or of size and condition

information. It may be that steelhead fry and parr may not rear only in Fifteenmile Creek

but also may use the Columbia mainstem for rearing, historically; this project could

provide information about this life history. A review of the methods and effectiveness of
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

13

rotary screw traps in providing reliable smolt yield estimates may be required. Recapture

rates may be low, but methods of improving the technique may be available (such as

separate marking and recapture sites). A province-wide agreement on monitoring

protocol and sites would assist (see comments on subbasin planning workshops under

Programmatic Issues).

ProjectID: 21011

Assess the Current Status and Biotic Integrity of the Resident Fish Assemblage in

Bonneville Reservoir

Sponsor: USGS/CRRL

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Bonneville Reservoir

Short Description: Resident fish in Bonneville Reservoir will be sampled to provide

baseline information on the population characteristics and status of resident fish species

and the biotic integrity of the resident fish assemblage.

Sponsor Request FY01: $351,700

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $1,099,700

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Disagree, Do Not Fund

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Do not fund. The unsolicited response falls short of what would be required to reverse

our decision. It fails to address the material issues. We regret that the ISRP comments on

this proposal in previous cycles were not as clear and helpful to the sponsors as they

ought to have been. We provide the following comments on certain points to clarify our

current analysis of this proposal. This is not to imply that point-by-point addressing of

these issues in a subsequent proposal would necessarily lead to reversal of our

recommendation.

The stated goal of the proposed study is to “assess the status of resident fish species and

the biotic integrity of the resident fish assemblage in Bonneville Reservoir”, which is a

stated information need in the Subbasin Summary. The application intended for this

information is to “...produce data that will establish a baseline from which the effects of

hydroelectric operations and watershed activities that influence mainstem river conditions

on the resident fish assemblage in Bonneville Reservoir can be evaluated.” At the heart of

the ISRP comments on this proposal is our doubt that it would be possible to relate shifts

in the species composition of the resident fish assemblage to changes in operation of the

hydroelectric system or watershed activities in the river basin. One of the reasons for

skepticism is that there have been so many human-induced changes in the fish

assemblage, brought about, for one thing, by introduction of non-native species. How

would a “shift toward normative conditions” in the fish assemblage be identified in light

of the drastic changes induced by the presence of non-native species? How would one

define “biotic integrity” within a system altered by introduced species? The proposal fails

to discuss basic issues of that kind, and instead focuses on sampling protocols and

routines for developing data. The proposal does not convince the reviewers that it can

develop information useful for measuring changes that might be due to the factors of
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

14

interest. Prior to moving to data collection and routines it would be necessary to give

thought to what the possible outcomes of the study might be and what interpretations

might be possible. Such a thought process would necessitate review and interpretation of

data obtained in the past. Availability of data might lead to selection of parts of the river

other than Bonneville Reservoir as appropriate study areas. On the other hand, while the

goal of attaining some level of “biotic integrity” might be a worthy one, it might prove to

be impossible to agree on an appropriate measure.

CBFWA Comments from DAIWP: The managers have some concern that this project is

only looking at one measure of biotic integrity (resident fish) within the reservoir. This

is good basic research but the contribution to management decisions is unclear.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

Do not fund. A response is not warranted. The proposal is generally well written and

addresses some concerns (i.e., reference to data sources for other large river/reservoir

settings) identified by last years review (project 20066). Other sampling concerns (i.e.,

possible utilization of more quantifiable sampling techniques) were not addressed. In the

reviewers minds, the proposal continued to contain only vague allusions to a general need

for more data, without indicating why it is priority work or identifying substantive

problems that need to be solved. The major task proposed - assessing efficacy of various

sampling gear - could have been done in preliminary fashion as part of proposal

preparation, allowing the proposers to focus on critical questions as significant

objectives. The database the project could generate would be very useful if a major

change in the hydrosystem or its operation was being planned, as baseline data from

which to assess changes. Alternatively (or additionally) there is a need for biological

investigation of the reservoir to help understand its carrying capacity for salmonids and to

assess whether that capacity is currently exceeded. As written, the proposal was not

pointed in that direction.

Reviewers are concerned that the biologic integrity portion of the proposal likely will not

provide a product that will be of substantial use in the context of the Fish and Wildlife

Program. IBI was developed for detecting disruptions in stable communities, but was not

developed for use in highly perturbed systems. The most likely result of the analysis

would be to describe the system as high variable and highly perturbed - which we already

know. Collaboration with others is not identified. Specifically, the project is not tied to

northern pikeminnow work.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

15

ProjectID: 21024

Evaluate Hatchery Reform Principles

Sponsor: NMFS

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Wind

Short Description: Investigate implementation potential of conservation hatchery

principles at production hatchery scale using NATURES raceway habitat rearing, antipredator conditioning, and growth modulation in a statistical design allowing partitioning

of effects.

Sponsor Request FY01: $1,063,200

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $3,351,307

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Disagree, Do Not Fund

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Do not fund until an experimental design is adequately presented. The reviewers current

understanding is that the revised design (point number 2 in the response) replaces the

design described in point 1. The proposal appears to still be evolving as the response

contains errors. The original proposal, the presentation, and the response each offer a

somewhat different approach to the project and its research objectives. The reviewers

found the iteration in the response to be promising. The project would provide useful

information, albeit in the long-term, on hatchery reform with basinwide applicability.

The experimental design is carelessly presented, although it contains many of the basic

elements of a sound experimental design. The proposed new experimental design

involves more treatment types; thus the power analysis as presented needs to be modified

to reflect the new design.

CBFWA Comments from DAIWP: More definitive results from NATUREs studies

should be available prior to initiating a large-scale production investigation. Fund after

a rigorous summary of all applied NATUREs studies has been presented to CBFWA AFC

to provide a better justification for work. This project potentially meets a RPA of the

2000 Draft Biological Opinion (9.6.4.3 Actions to Implement Recommendations in the

NWPPC's Artificial Production Review).

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

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

resubmit in response review.

The uncertainty about the project design and the power analysis precludes us from

currently recommending funds for this proposal. The basin should consider what

evaluation standard should be applied to these comparative studies. For example, past

studies have examined survival for a short period or migration distance downstream.

However, the ultimate measure of success must be the return rate of adults. Modest

increases in juvenile survival won’t be a major gain in the Basin unless they lead to

substantially greater increases in SARs ... (e.g., a 25% increase in a 1% SAR is still only
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

16

1.25%; not enough to resolve our problems). Before any major changes in procedures are

endorsed, we need to be realistic about our expectations from these tools.

The design of the intended ‘experiment’ needs to be clarified, as the presentation of the

experimental design during the site visit was quite different than that described in the

proposal. Interactions were dropped (a mistake we think) and the power analysis was not

completely explained. The proposal (but not the presentation!) described a 2X2 treatment

experimental design that seems appropriate to examine the treatment effects of bottom

substrate and predator avoidance. The approach is also used to examine the effects of

controlled temperatures and water source (spring water) versus ambient temperatures and

river water. In many cases preliminary data support survival advantages by smolts reared

under one of the NATUREs environmental conditions. It will be most interesting to see

if those trends continue with a larger scale study and to try to quantify any survival

advantage of multiple factors and their interactions. There is a lot of interest in the region

to determine if NATUREs is a viable tool. The methods do not describe where detections

are to occur.

A long history of this project is described. Why has there been so little peer review of

primary results? Most publications seem to be reviews of the good ideas of NATUREs,

not publications of results. Why isn’t this group involved with Beckman and his

colleagues who have published pertinent results on growth patterns and SARs? Why

aren’t they part of this study's design team? Elements of NATUREs haven’t been studied

in designs that isolate effects and interactions. To date, NATUREs has been a potpourri

of gravel bottom, christmas trees, arbitrarily chosen culture densities, diets, etc.

Apparently, the only benefit has been darker coloration's protection immediately (hours)

after release in clear streams where birds are present. None of the rest of it has been

tested in isolation or interaction with other elements. So the design here is to test the

potpourri. We still won't know which element is significant.

Despite the concerns expressed above, this research proposal addresses timely and

important questions central to hatchery reform in the Columbia River Basin. The project

sponsors collectively have an impressive research and publication background – and have

been diligent about publishing results from many of their previous studies. The efficacy

of hatchery reform and the potential for reform that exists in many older production

facilities are critical questions in the basin. The sponsor’s commitment to rigorous

research and their willingness to seek peer-review scrutiny of this work is commendable.

One of the reviewers questioned whether Carson Hatchery is the best situation to test the

NATUREs theory; perhaps the new Nez Perce tribal hatchery, under construction, will be

a more appropriate facility.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

17

ProjectID: 21026

Inventory and Restore Beaver and Beaver Habitats

Sponsor: YN

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Klickitat

Short Description: Inventory and restore beaver populations and habitats to the upper

portion of the subbasin to restore the array of functions that beaver provide for the

watershed.

Sponsor Request FY01: $205,440

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $675,440

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Disagree, Do Not Fund

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Do not fund, the project design was not provided in adequate detail. The reviewers were

concerned that there was not more information on the source and size of the proposed

beaver population. With a better project design, this project would be fundable as a small

pilot project (with a reduced budget) in an area where the likelihood of success is

reasonable in the upper watershed, and where the response benefits can be monitored. A

point-by-point response to the ISRP comments was provided that the reviewers reacted

positively to even though they had major reservations about the original proposal. The

limitations of the project were recognized, including the need to integrate this work into

an overall watershed assessment and prescription plan. The past and potential role of

beavers should be considered as part of the watershed assessment. The anticipated

benefits to steelhead are questionable since they do not prefer slow pond-like habitat and

are generally found in the mainstem of third-order streams or larger.

Although the potential for brook trout expansion is addressed through selection criteria

for sites, reviewers were troubled by the comment on brook trout indicating that stream

gradient would likely preclude brook trout immigration. The proposers should refer to

recent work in Montana (Adams et al., Transactions of the American Fisheries Society,

May 2000) indicating that channel slopes of up to 13% do not ensure against upstream

dispersal of brook trout. They should also consider the extensive literature on beaver

management and problems that may evolve.

The ISRP comment on rolling the project into the rehabilitation proposal was directed at

the need for a watershed assessment to show that this kind of activity is a priority.

CBFWA Comments from DAIWP: If more than one of the three new Yakama Nation

wildlife projects are funded (21026, 21027 and 21028), the projects should be combined

to maximize efficiencies in implementation and ensure cost effectiveness.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP concerns. This proposal

should not be funded as an individual project. This should be one of the tools among the
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

18

suite of tools used for watershed rehabilitation in the subbasin. Consider integrating this

proposal with #199705600 Riparian and In-Channel Habitat Enhancement Project.

From the perspective of ecosystem function and as a means to restore riparian wetland

function along streams, this is an interesting proposal. This proposal does a reasonable

job outlining why the restoration of beaver habitat would be beneficial to watershed

function, but its approach is less clear. The primary uncertainty is how it builds on

previous beaver restoration work (earlier projects listed), what it will do to complement

existing work, and why beaver have not re-colonized naturally. The objectives and

methods need to be presented in more detail. For example, how will the historical

database be used, and what are the limits on the relevance of historical data under current

conditions? How will the prioritization of habitat restoration be done? How will the

results of these introductions be assessed and against what comparative basis?

The review panel questioned the reason for introduction since the salmonid most likely to

benefit from these habitats are coho salmon ... which do not use the upper Klickitat

drainage. Further, it is very possible that beaver ponds and the associated habitat would

encourage brook trout expansion which is likely not desirable.

Finally, why is beaver restoration related to “fully mitigating for wildlife losses from

hydropower”? The loss of beaver is not likely to be closely associated with the

hydrosystem, is this proposal then appropriate to this funding source? If the reintroduction is proposed as an ecosystem restoration study or technique, then we can

accept that argument. However, if beavers are a means to restore riparian wetlands and

store water, then the cost of such programs are appropriately included in the KFP habitat

restoration projects. The two proposals will be linked already since mapping and habitat

assessment are needed to determine sites for introduction.

ISRP Conditional Fundable Recommendation - CBFWA High Priority or

Recommended Action

Klickitat Fisheries Program Recommendation

Projects: 198811525, 199701725, 198812025, 199506325

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Fundable on an interim basis.

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable on an interim basis. The KFP provided adequate responses to most of the ISRP

review comments, but differences remain on three substantive issues: supplementation,

structure of the program proposals, and sequencing of project implementation. In order

for the ISRP to evaluate whether a “sound scientific basis” exists to these KFP projects,

we will require a further response to these issues. To proceed in the interim, the ISRP

recommends that the KFP develop comprehensive assessment plans and documents

(including completion of the HGMPs) and that these be submitted for review before

future budget approvals. Hatchery and fishway construction will be handled through the
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

19

3-Step process and implementation of the APR as specified by the Council’s amended

program.

Supplementation: Respondents for the KFP stated their objective of using hatchery

production to rebuild natural production and provide significant harvest. The harvest

objectives were derived from the Tribal Restoration Plan and U.S. vs Oregon. It is

clearly not the role or intention of the ISRP to comment on such policy-based objectives.

Our task is to advise on the scientific basis of programs to achieve the stated objectives.

Given the information provided on natural populations in the Klickitat basin (provided

for the original submissions), the stated size of current hatchery releases, and these

harvest objectives; this committee remains concerned that the restoration of endemic

natural populations will be at risk. Consequently, the committee strongly recommends

that quantitative stock assessment programs (including monitoring and research) be

implemented on these natural populations, and that the KFP phase-in the desired levels of

hatchery production. The establishment of healthy natural populations and the

determination of sustainable total exploitation rates would provide a “base” harvest

within the Klickitat basin that could then be augmented through hatchery production.

However, unless selective harvest is feasible on the hatchery production, fisheries should

be limited to the harvest rate sustainable by the natural populations. Hatchery production

should be scaled to the allowable harvest level and the hatchery escapement necessary.

The committee believes that such a rebuilding/assessment process and integration of

hatchery production is the best biological means over time for accomplishing the KFP

objectives. The time required to achieve these will be a function of exploitation

pressures, habitat productivity, environmental conditions (eg. marine survivals), and

interactions between hatchery and natural fish.

In our initial review, the limited information on natural populations and the scale of

hatchery production, left this committee with a concern that harvest, not restoration, was

the principle objective of the KFP supplementation program. However, in the KFP reply

the objectives of restoration of natural populations and harvest seemed more balanced. It

is our unanimous advice that to achieve this balance, the status and productivity of the

natural populations must be well-described and paramount in designing a sustainable

fishery program, and that hatchery production can augment harvest but can not

compromise restoration of natural production. Restoration of diverse natural populations

will be the long-term resource basis within the Klickitat basin and needs to be closely

monitored and restored. Furthermore, if substantial harvest rates are expected in terminal

areas (i.e., within the Klickitat River or Bonneville pool), then a quantitative in-season

management program is also necessary to reduce the risk of over-fishing on an

unexpectedly poor return and to meet allocation agreements where appropriate.

Organization of proposals: The KFP clearly disagreed with the ISRP’s suggested reorganization of proposals along major program activity types. The ISRP also recognizes

the difficulty in identifying individual activity costs if the proposals were “unbundled” as

described in the KFP response. Our suggestion, however, was more to “re-bundle” or reorganize proposals along the principal program objectives (eg. stock assessment, habitat

assessment and restoration, administration and data management, and major project
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

20

construction). At this time, however, we see little need to prolong this issue since it

involves re-organization of activities not whether specific activities merit support.

The objective of our suggestion was to collate activities for evaluation of a

comprehensive program. For example, all programs within the basin required a sound

technical basis of stock assessment ... involving estimation of numbers of spawners (by

stock, location, age and sex), catch by stock/age (and/or exploitation rates), and

environmental monitoring. These types of activities are referred to but were components

of various proposals and did not specify how these activities would be conducted.

Monitoring of spawning escapement was an objective associated with construction of the

Lyle Falls fishway; but these falls are apparently not a complete barrier to migration so

these counts will be incomplete. How will the total spawning escapements and their

distribution be determined? The critical issue for our review is that we understand how

the technical assessment or research will be conducted and to what quantitative standards.

If the KFP prefers to maintain this organization of proposals, then the onus remains to

submit more detailed and explicit descriptions (such as begun in Table 5 of their reply) of

methods and programs so that credible peer review can be conducted.

In the absence of these comprehensive work plans, including data requirements and

analysis;

• the KFP cannot assure itself of a sufficient information basis for resource

development or that it can be conducted in a cost effective manner, and

• the ISRP cannot assess whether a “sound scientific basis” exists to the proposals

soliciting funds, as required under the 1996 amendment to the Power Act.

Sequence of Project Implementation: The ISRP was impressed with the related EMG

proposal (21004), which promises to provide critical information on fish passage at Lyle

and Castile Falls. In a logical progression of project development, the EMG proposal

would be funded prior to implementation of the KFP passage improvements at both Lyle

and Castile Falls. Information gathered in the EMG proposal could provide critically

important information about the degree of passage barrier at the two falls, as well as the

energetic costs associated with transiting them. If there is concern about the degree of

fish passage problems in the Klickitat, then this work should be undertaken before the

KFP proceeds with major expenditures on fish passage, etc. However, if at Lyle Falls,

the decision has been made to proceed with construction of the fishway and broodstock

capture site, then this investigation could be moved up-river to Castile Falls.

Nevertheless, from our discussions, we concluded that there was a definite need for

project 21004 to be more integrated with the KFP projects.

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments on the Klickitat Subbasin and the Klickitat

Production Project (KFP)

The Klickitat River is one of the longest undammed rivers (95mile long) remaining in the

Pacific northwest and is the largest drainage basin (1,350 square miles) within the Gorge

Province. The mainstem Klickitat contains two passage impediments for salmon and

steelhead. One in the lower river at Lyle Falls (river mile RM 2.2) and the second upriver at Castile Falls (RM 64), but neither of these are blockages to fish passage. Using
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

21

Mitchell Act funds, the Klickitat Hatchery (RM 42.5) and fishways at Lyle Falls (RM

2.2) were constructed in 1952. The lower couple of miles in the mainstem pass through a

narrow rock cut and provide one of the few remaining dipnet fishing opportunities for

Tribal fishers in the Columbia Basin. “It holds special significance as the one remaining

site where Yakama fishers have the opportunity to fish year around using traditional

dipnet and jumpnet gears.”

The watershed supports a diversity of fish and wildlife. Spring chinook, summer and

winter steelhead are endemic to the system. Summer chinook have been detected via

electrophoretic surveys (Marshall 2000, in review) but status uncertain. Fall chinook

were not know in the basin but lower Columbia River “Tule” stock were introduced in

1946. Fall chinook production was switched to upper river Brights in 1986. Similarly,

coho salmon were not present until the early 1950s when lower Columbia River hatchery

fish were released. Resident trouts in the Basin include rainbow, resident and adfluvial

bull trout in upper basin, brook trout and resident and coastal cutthroat. However,

resident cutthroat may not exist in the Basin and the present status of the coastal cutthroat

is unknown. Brook trout were introduced in the late 1970s and now naturally reproduce

in the upper river tributaries. Pacific lamprey are known to utilize the river up to RM57.

The Subbasin summary identified several threatened or endangered wildlife species

within the Klickitat watershed, including Sandhill crane, Western Pond turtle, Oregon

spotted frog, Western Grey squirrel, Bald eagle, Northern spotted owl, Canada Lynx,

Peregrine falcon, Mardon skipper (small butterfly).

Hatchery production in the Klickitat only involves the one hatchery, but production of

fall chinook and coho salmon are brought in from outside facilities. Hatchery HGMPs

were provided for spring chinook, fall chinook, and coho salmon but not for steelhead.

These plans were incomplete and the steelhead plan needs to be provided given the

importance the proponents placed on supplementing production of this endemic species.

Levels of production identified in the plans were:

1) spring chinook release target 500,000 to 600,000 yearlings from an endemic stock to

be used to supplement natural production,

2) ”Bright” fall chinook releases of about 4 million smolts intended for mitigation of

Tribal and non-tribal harvest; no escapement goal was stated for the return of these fish to

natural spawning areas,

3) coho salmon release of 1.35 million smolts from Lewis R hatchery and to be

acclimated in ponds along the Klickitat systems, production is intend for harvest

mitigation and no escapement goal was provided.

Although no HGMP was provided, our understanding is that hatchery production of

summer steelhead will be intended to supplement natural production of these fish.

Further, although comments were made about the value placed on summer chinook, no

reference was made about enhancement of this race.

While the subbasin summary was important as background material for this review, the

review committee did identify several topics that would have strengthened the
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

22

presentation. For example, the season hydrograph, run timing of the races, basic data for

stock assessments (catch, escapements, age structure), the basis of management goals,

and a basis for prioritizing habitat issues. In the absence of quantitative stock

assessments, the proposals fail to justify technically the need for the projects presented.

For example, what is the basis for the numbers of hatchery fish to be released?

There was not evidence of a Watershed Council presence in the subbasin and a watershed

assessment plan was not incorporated in the summary. As a comparison, we note that the

Hood River basin had a strong and capable watershed council presence.

In reviewing these proposals and during interviews, the review committee was concerned

about the use of the term “supplementation” which was important in justifying several

proposals. The understanding by the Yakama Nation of “supplementation” seems at

variance with the orthodox definition, i.e. ‘jump starting natural reproduction of a native

stock by temporary hatchery reproduction.’ Our understanding of ‘supplementation’ in

the Klickitat proposals seems to be the use hatchery production to support harvests while

encouraging natural spawning in an aggregate population of hatchery- and wildspawners. Again this interpretation is strengthened due to a lack of management goals

for the natural population. This leads to the paradoxical tactic of increasing spring

chinook smolt releases — the apparent rationale being that ‘in order to maintain present

harvest and have natural spawning too we’ll have to increase smolt releases and rely on a

predictable SAR consistent with those of recent history”. Such a tactic fails to consider

density dependence between salmonid smolts (in the river, Bonneville pool, or lower

Columbia River) as a limiting factor on the productivity of natural populations. The

review panel would encourage the proponents to establish their management goals, phase

in hatchery production, and evaluate how to achieve their apparent goals of sustaining

catch in the river (established at a sustainable terminal harvest rate), and to develop the

monitoring programs necessary to learn from their efforts.

One specific point of confusion during our discussions was the genetic relatedness of

hatchery and natural populations of spring chinook and steelhead presently in the

Klickitat. Following review of material from A. Marshall and C. Busack (WDFW,

Olympia, WA) our understanding of these relationships are:

• Klickitat spring chinook are genetically different from summer chinook and fall

chinook sampled from the Klickitat river;

• Klickitat spring chinook sampled from the hatchery are different from those sampled

from the natural spawners. As a comparison, hatchery springs versus natural springs

were as different as summer chinook versus fall chinook;

• Naturally spawning Klickitat summer steelhead consistently differed from Skamania

Hatchery steelhead sampled. Klickitat summer steelhead originally contributed to the

development of the Skamania steelhead broodstock, but differences exist between

them; and

• Sampling of Klickitat winter steelhead has been inadequate for conclusions.

Point (2) differs from a statement in the subbasin summary (page 7) but that statement

was based on a 1990 report.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

23

Preliminary recommendation on the four YKFP Artificial Production projects -

198811525, 199701725, 198812025, 199506325: Fundable only if response adequately

address the ISRP’s concerns. Resubmit proposals on KFP see comments.

The review panel is fully aware that the KFP is being isolated from the YKFP to

accommodate the provincial review process and that the proposal organization used is

consistent with the four budgetary items included in the proposal template (Part 1).

However, from the perspective of a scientific review, it would more informative if the

Klickitat Fisheries Program was structured by major program activity rather than budget

item. In the present structure, the four interrelated proposals don’t allow for assessment

of individual project activities and progress, since aspects of major technical programs or

activities are included in more than one proposal and can not be reviewed as one

comprehensive activity. For example, the M&E proposal includes activities for fish

production or habitat programs, but the association of M&E costs associated with one

technical activity may not be evident.

As examples of core scientific programs, the KFP may be grouped into Stock Assessment

and Production, Habitat Assessment and Restoration, and a core administrative program

that included administrative support, data management and GIS staff, watershed

assessments, and policy development. Within each of the programs, the costs for each

budget component in Part 1 could be specified and objectives, hypotheses, methods,

results, and future proposal requests combined for a comprehensive and informative

proposal.

Sub-programs within each major program may facilitate administration but the activities

within any sub-program would have to be consistent with the objectives of the parent

program. For example, the Klickitat Hatchery could be included under a Salmon

Assessment and Production program but the production goals of the hatchery program

and data for monitoring would be consistent with an overall goal of sustained natural

production, achieving spawning goals, and meeting catch objectives established by the

managers. Frequently in the present proposals, the rationale for activities was that some

other planning document, etc required them. The scientific interest, however, is how a

proponent proposes to meet an obligation in a technically sound manner, how to monitor

and assess, and what progress has been evident.

In the absence of a set of technically coherent proposals, the review panel is required to

interpret the intention or value of major program cost. This is obviously not a desirable

situation or basis for allocation of funding over three years. Consequently, this panel

recommends that the YFP restructure these proposals and clarify actual project activities

are associated with funds requested.

It is notable that in the ISRP’s June 15, 1999 report, they recommended that the entire set

of proposals included in the umbrella program (20510) should be reorganized so that the

scientific approach to achieving the stated objectives could be evaluated. This

recommendation applied to all proposals in the Umbrella (including projects 8811525,
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

24

8812025, 9506325, and 9701325, which are in this response review). In addition, the

ISRP listed specific questions or concerns for each project. The funding recommendation

at that time was to fund at an appropriate base level until a programmatic review can be

completed.

ProjectID: 198811525

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Design and Construction

Sponsor: YN

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Klickitat

Short Description: Design/Construction:

1. Klickitat: O & M facility and Lyle Trap

Sponsor Request FY01: $3,683,000

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $5,867,000

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Fundable on interim basis.

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

See recommendation on the set of KFP projects.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments for the set of KFP proposals:

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

proposals on KFP see comments.

The decision has apparently been made earlier on the Lyle Falls fishway construction,

this proposal completes the planning stage towards construction, but also includes

construction cost. The possible long-term benefits appear to justify the high cost, but

further investigation on feasibility is justified (see project 21004). From a scientific

perspective, it is necessary to conduct the research on fish passage (as in #21004) before

investing these funds in construction. If you build it, they may not come.

ProjectID: 198812025

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) Management, Data and Habitat (Klickitat

Only)

Sponsor: YN

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Klickitat

Short Description: This proposal provides support for Yakama Nation policy,

management and administrative activities related to all YKFP operations in the Klickitat

River Basin, including all M & E, O & M and Design and Construction activities.

Sponsor Request FY01: $363,510

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $1,170,964

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Fundable on interim basis.

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

See recommendation on the set of KFP projects.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

25

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments for the set of KFP proposals:

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

proposals on KFP see comments.

This proposal is basically for program management and facilitation and costs were

estimated as 30% of past funds in the YKFP. This proposal contains some very strong

statements about program objectives. For example, the technical background states that

“The YKFP is a supplementation project designed to use artificial propagation in an

attempt to maintain or increase natural production while maintaining long-term fitness of

the target population and keeping ecological and genetic impacts to non-target species

within specified limits.” The paper then cites RASP (1991).

Under Management Philosophy, it states:

“The YN employs an adaptive management policy in order to achieve YKFP goals and to

protect the basin’s fishery resources from unforeseen, adverse impacts. Adaptive

management is the conscious decision in favor of action designed to increase

understanding as opposed to inaction in the face of uncertainty.”

Technically, we fully support such statements but how are they implemented in the

proposals presented? This situation may exemplify the base for the panels above

recommendation to re-structure the program along lines of activities. In general, however,

this proposal is not amenable to scientific review.

ProjectID: 199506325

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring And Evaluation (Klickitat Only)

Sponsor: YN

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Klickitat

Short Description: Collect and integrate baseline information on habitat, demographics

and life history to design comprehensive enhancement plans. Monitor production,

harvest, genetic and ecological impacts of Klickitat programs to guide adaptive

management.

Sponsor Request FY01: $447,723

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $1,468,082

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Fundable on interim basis.

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

See recommendation on the set of KFP projects.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments for the set of KFP proposals:

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

proposals on KFP see comments.

Among the four projects within the YFP this proposal provided the best description of the

project need and technical background. Task and objective descriptions were good, but it
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

26

was not clear whether the assumptions were assumptions that were being tested by the

project or assumptions that will not be tested but are necessary to infer from the project’s

results. The proposal encompasses a large number of objectives, but it is not always clear

how they fit together, or were chosen. The proposal lists but does not develop an

overarching strategy to explain why these particular activities were chosen or how all of

these results are to be integrated to make an assessment of overall success/failure. The

Panel again suggests that these limitations reflect the structure of the four proposals.

There is, however, greater need to consider uncertainties and risks associated with current

low survivals (are populations viable?). The monitoring costs are very high, for a long

period, and do not include a control/treatment experimental approach. How is this

consistent with the commitment to adaptive management?

ProjectID: 199701725

Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project Operation and Maintenance (Klickitat Only)

Sponsor: YN

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Klickitat

Short Description: Operation and maintenance of YKFP facilities in the Klickitat

subbasin.

Sponsor Request FY01: $0

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $2,530,000

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Fundable on interim basis.

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

See recommendation on the set of KFP projects.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments for the set of KFP proposals:

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

proposals on KFP see comments.

The need for O & M funds is clearly an essential part of the overall program but this

proposal provided only minimal background or technical detail. Substantial increases in

program cost can be expected if the Lyle Falls facility proceeds, the Castile Falls passage

is undertaken, and KFP assumes management of the Klickitat hatchery. We noted that

out-year costs for operation do not yet include additional cost for FTE’s.

This proposal is again not amenable to scientific review. The budget can not be assessed

by activity since costs were not attributed to objectives in section 6/10. Note that costs

for this proposal begin in 2002.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

27

Other Gorge Proposals with ISRP Conditional Fundable Recommendations

ProjectID: 21012

Evaluate Status of Coastal Cutthroat Trout in the Columbia River Basin above Bonneville

Dam

Sponsor: USGS-CRRL

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Columbia Gorge

Short Description: Survey Columbia River tributaries above Bonneville Dam for coastal

cutthroat trout to determine population status, to identify limiting factors, and to

understand the role of current and past human and natural disturbances affecting status.

Sponsor Request FY01: $39,770 (CBFWA Recommendation, actual request $227,658)

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $533,734

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Partially agree that objective 1 is

fundable, funding of any other objective of this proposal should require further review

per the comments below.

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Partially agree, objective 1 is fundable, but funding of any other objective of this proposal

should require further review per the comments below.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

Do not fund. A response is not warranted. The proposal was generally well written and

the PI has superior qualifications and a strong publication record, and the proposed work

is needed. However, this project appears likely to duplicate other subbasin efforts that

already should have collected (or are collecting) some data on coastal cutthroat

populations. While it is important and timely to complete a comprehensive status

assessment of coastal cutthroat trout, it would make more sense to expand this type of

assessment work beyond individual species and include all varieties of resident salmonids

and amphibians. For example, bull trout surveys will likely cover much of the same

ground and observe cutthroat trout, if present. It would be much more cost-efficient if

this cutthroat survey work could be combined with the bull trout survey, project

199405400. From a sampling standpoint, a single survey for all salmonid fishes (and

nongame fishes) and amphibians would yield superior data and pose less risk of physical

injury from repeated electrofishing.

The current proposal only vaguely addressed the approach that would be used to

characterize limiting factors. There is a need to better review the existing literature and

existing population data on coastal cutthroat trout and to utilize that information to

develop a stronger proposal that more specifically targets limiting factors. The study

methods in general seemed appropriate. However, the proposed study would include data

collection only under summer low-flow conditions, but there is no longer any reason to

only sample at that time. Fall/winter sampling is technically feasible and often enables

better assessment of limiting factors. Would that not be the case in this situation? Also,

a just-published test of stream sampling methods (Roni and Fayram (2000) North Amer.

J. Fisheries Mgt. 20:683) should be helpful.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

28

We suggest that if at all possible, the principal investigator from this project could act as

a coordinator for coastal cutthroat trout status assessment work in the province.

CBFWA Comments from DAIWP: Funding for Objective 1 should be considered a high

priority. The other objectives should be considered high priority in FY 02 and 03 if

warranted based on the results from FY 01. We recommend funding only Objective 1

during FY 2001. Many projects within the basin are finding cutthroat information. An

organized accumulation of this information is needed. This project should first

accumulate all available information from all fish and wildlife agencies and tribes in the

basin. Fieldwork should then focus on subbasins and areas where data is missing.

ProjectID: 199304000

Fifteenmile Creek Habitat Restoration Project (Request For Multi-Year Funding)

Sponsor: ODFW

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Fifteenmile

Short Description: Provide for continued operation and maintenance of all completed

habitat restoration measures within the Fifteenmile Subbasin. Continue photo

documentation of habitat recovery and the collection of stream temperature data.

Sponsor Request FY01: $220,040

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $670,113

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable to bring closure to this multi-year task. Issues on watershed assessment and

monitoring may be addressed in the Council review and BPA contracting process as

deliverables, including a delivery date for the watershed assessment and prescription.

Despite the completion of fencing, a watershed condition assessment is required.

Maintenance activities from past improvements require support, yet should form part of

an overall watershed restoration plan that has evolved from a completed watershed

assessment, which they suggest is in process. Detailed M&E as proposed in 199801900

(Wind River Watershed Restoration) may not be necessary, but routine monitoring

(physical and biological response in relative terms such as streambank vegetative regrowth or juvenile steelhead presence/absence) should be included, at least, to confirm

fish utilization and relative response. If you fence off almost an entire river, are there

measurable fish and wildlife benefits? The work has likely provided fish and wildlife

benefits, but some confirmation is required. These benefits were not quantified despite

the monitoring of stream temperature and canopy closure since 1987. The response to

the questions about 15 year leases is adequate. See comments in 21001, below, which

also apply to this and other Fifteenmile habitat works. Comments by ISRP under General

Issues also apply (e.g., monitoring, priorities in habitat rehabilitation).

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP concerns. Roll the proposal

up into an overall watershed restoration plan that includes all related activities tied to
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

29

watershed assessment, prescriptions listed by importance of implementation,

rehabilitation plans, and a monitoring and evaluation stage that is coordinated within the

province. The monitoring plan needs to go beyond the photopoint approach, and

expanded to monitor key water quality, vegetation, and fish community responses.

Comments from the FY2000 still apply. Using solar pumping stations to replace

watergaps is a valuable improvement; thus, they should emphasize the solar pump work.

They should also look into options of other mechanisms than 15-year leases.

This proposal provides a good description of the project since its inception, and actions

taken to restore riparian habitat. After an implementation phase of the project, which

involved the acquisition of 15-year leases as well as direct actions taken to restore

riparian habitat, the project in now in an operations and maintenance phase.

Despite the clear and detailed description of the project’s history and of subbasin limiting

factors, the proposal provides much less detail on monitoring progress toward meeting

objectives. For example, the six initial objectives include unimpeded passage, reduced

sedimentation, increased flows, reduced temperatures, etc. But these specific measures

are not all addressed in the discussion of photopoint monitoring. Moreover, despite

O&M work since 1986, the proposal gave no indication of water temperature

improvement to date and no indication of increase in fish population.

The proposal also should include a more detailed assessment of what is likely to happen

in 2012 when the last lease expires. Are the incentives facing landowners sufficient to

ensure that riparian protection will be maintained? Will the cost of fence repair, etc. be

considered affordable? How would maintaining the existing riparian improvements

benefit landowners?

To assess whether objectives of the project are being met, the tasks should be directly tied

to objectives in a measurable way. Objective 1, to “protect, enhance and restore” is too

vague to be directly measured. Objective 2, to monitor the success of recovery efforts, is

limited to stream temperature and canopy closure. What about the other factors listed as

original objectives? Objective 3 could use more specifics as to how the transfer of

information will take place, and what is expected for outcomes.

This work (and others) could benefit from a comparative approach (treated /untreated). It

seems population viability may remain at question, but this work addresses the only

current means of increasing survivals overall by increasing it in the freshwater life stage.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

30

ProjectID: 21001

Fifteenmile Creek Riparian Fencing / Physical stream Survey Project

Sponsor: ODFW

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Fifteenmile

Short Description: Construct approximately 30 miles of riparian protection fence over a

three year period along Fifteenmile Creek and it's tributaries. Conduct a physical stream

of 90 miles of privately owned stream in the Fifteenmile Subbasin.

Sponsor Request FY01: $151,685

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $471,843

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable. Points of concern can likely be addressed in the Council review and BPA

contract process. The contract process should note that rehabilitation efforts should be led

by watershed assessment, including fish habitat assessment. The proponents responded

to the concerns raised by ISRP and acknowledged that a watershed assessment, a listing

of watershed rehabilitation tasks by priority of prescription, and improved monitoring and

evaluation in Fifteen Mile Creek that is integrated within the Province is required. They

added that these tasks are, nevertheless, beyond the scope of the proposal, but recognized

that these tasks should proceed or compliment the rehabilitation work, and suggested that

assessment is in progress. The lack of evidence of steelhead rearing in lower reaches and

little presentation of information on steelhead life history remains a concern. Juvenile

fish migration throughout the year is not evidence of rearing, and perhaps more of an

indication of inadequate rearing space or conditions upstream (that get no better

downstream) and a density dependent response, or migration to the Colombia.

The fencing work and physical stream surveys proposed complete several years of similar

effort, but there is little to suggest that this addresses key limiting factors. Cooperative

agreements with landowners should reduce the costs of 15-year leases. They respond that

natural re-generation is adequate and that tree-planting is not required. While the lower

reaches appear as poor rearing habitat currently, recovery of the riparian zone to a mature

canopy might provide more suitable habitat, in time, if not limited by some other factor.

Without further indication from some index site or routine monitoring and evaluation,

there is little to suggest that the fencing work to date was successful in providing rearing

habitat and towards recovery of this population. While a treatment/control approach or

before/after comparison is not available, evidence of relative utilization may be helpful.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP concerns. This project

should be rolled into the habitat restoration proposal 199304000 and they should explore

cost saving by seeking alternatives to 15 year leases. The fencing work to date is an

impressive record, and the proposed work finishes the task (maintenance will need to

continue). They might also consider tree planting to accelerate the recovery process.

However, the proposal and presentation did not indicate that steelhead rear in the lower
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

31

sections – the majority of the spawning and rearing occurs in the upper part of the

watershed, thus rehabilitation needs to focus to this area. The lower area has low flow

and temperature problems and may partly be improved over time by the actions proposed,

although the lower reaches are primarily a migration corridor. Nevertheless, other fish

and wildlife may benefit from this fence work during summer rearing. The area fenced

should be a function of the riparian area requirement and the local landscape and not a

fixed width. An overall watershed restoration plan with tasks listed by order of

importance is required. Evaluation and monitoring should be integrated within the

province, and should be approached on a watershed scale where the treatment is

restoration (all aspects) compared to no treatment, and where the response variables may

be smolt yield or smolts per spawner at some point on the recruitment curve (max

recruitment, MSY, or capacity production).

ProjectID: 199705600

Lower Klickitat Riparian and In-Channel Habitat Enhancement Project

Sponsor: YN

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Klickitat

Short Description:

Sponsor Request FY01: $313,318

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $1,090,459

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Fundable on an interim basis if

funding is based on achievement of milestones.

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable on an interim basis if the funding is based on achievement of milestones. The

response was barely adequate, although the response did provide limited information that

describes how restoration activities were selected and partially quantifies their habitat

restoration targets. The site visit showed some riparian areas that needed work but those

are not described in enough detail in the proposal or response. Funding for this project

should be set up with milestones. 1) they should complete the assessment and

prescription plan. 2) they should set up a watershed council; 3) If they are going to use

EDT, they should recognize the need to verify the preliminary results. There are several

high priority on the ground activities identified that may be justified, e.g. Snyder Creek

passage, but little information is given on what will be accomplished. The contract

deliverables should be clearly defined in terms of what activities will be completed, i.e.,

area, amount, and cost of in-channel habitat structures, bank stabilization, fencing, etc.,

based on the delivery of a watershed assessment and prescription plan that has the habitat

rehabilitation work listed by order of priority.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable only if response adequately address the ISRP’s concerns; e.g. activities and

costs are specified and expected benefits associated with these actions are projected. The

panel recognizes that a lower level of funding may be necessary to conduct this initial

work.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

32

This proposal provided useful background information about the general problems

affecting fish in the Klickitat watershed and a good general description of the need for the

different project elements. But while it provides the technical background, rationale, and

past history of activities, it provides little information on what will be done with the

requested funds (for example, the major cost is for sub-contracts, but for what?). The

objectives stated are very general and there was not indication about how priority

activities would be determined. Beyond the general descriptions, the proposal does not

offer a rationale for how the particular restoration activities were identified. At present,

this proposal appears to be a placeholder (for $$) for projects that were not justified in the

proposal. What is the budget based on and how do these M&E costs relate to those in

project #199506325?

The absence of a Watershed Assessment Plan, as identified in our general comments,

may have contributed to this very general presentation. Further, there is no information

presented on the current stage of progression of existing programs.

It is difficult to reconcile support for ongoing restoration work (for which no rationale is

given) in the absence of a comprehensive watershed assessment. If watershed assessment

still needs to be completed then how can specific restoration measures be identified and a

budget developed? If results of prior assessment work are available, then they should be

presented to provide a rationale for the ongoing habitat work. It is not clear what level of

watershed assessment has been done in the basin and how the results have been

incorporated in proposal. Watershed inventory and monitoring are referred to in the

objectives but a completed assessment was not identified.

The monitoring design and performance measures are not clear. How will success be

determined? The adequacy of the budget cannot be evaluated because the limiting factors

and priority restoration needs (and therefore reasonable costs) are not defined. The use of

land acquisition is potentially very important but was not described in any detail.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

33

ISRP and CBFWA Agree: ISRP Fundable and CBFWA High Priority or

Recommended Action

ProjectID: 21013

Western Pond Turtle Recovery - Columbia River Gorge

Sponsor: WDFW

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Columbia Gorge

Short Description: Protect existing WPT population through habitat improvements,

expand WPT population through "head start " program and continue reintroductions at

USFWS Pierce National Wildlife Refuge.

Sponsor Request FY01: $167,025

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $361,225

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable, the response was adequate. We raised only a few, mainly administrative, issues

such as the proposal's lack of reference to Fish & Wildlife Program. The response

addresses all those items satisfactorily and makes the case for the proposal's tie to the

Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. CVs of researchers are provided.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable only if the response makes a better case for the proposal's tie to the Columbia

Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Although this project relates to a Washington State

Recovery Plan, it does not make any reference to the Fish and Wildlife Program. It was

unclear if this was a species of concern across the region, e.g. in Oregon.

Otherwise, the project was well described, with clear objectives, a competent research

and implementation team, and offers what appears to be a high likelihood of success. It

was a bit difficult to assess PI credentials – no CVs provided.

This proposal addresses a recovery problem that already involves a number of agencies

and NGOs. There were no explicit plans for information transfer from the project’s

results, however. The presentation was good and addressed several questions generated

from the proposal review such as the results of the “head start” effort.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

34

Hood River Production Program

ISRP Response Review for the HRPP Set of Proposals - 198805303, 198805304,

198805307, 198902900, 199500700

The ODFW and CTWSRO response to the ISRP review comments on the HRPP projects

addressed most of the ISRP concerns adequately. However, many of the ISRP’s concerns

should be kept in mind during the proposed 2002 comprehensive program review. There

may be a role for the ISRP in the 2002 comprehensive program review, and the ISRP

should be kept informed of progress towards formalizing that review. By 2002, several

important datasets should have sufficient detail to provide input on some of the ISRP’s

concerns such as juvenile loss through Powerdale Dam.

Specifically, the responses adequately addressed the ISRP’s concerns on juvenile loss

through the Powerdale Facility, the potential use of PIT tags (perhaps to be revisited

during the 2002 conference), smolt releases below Powerdale Dam, straying of recycled

adult steelhead, and the impact of smolt numbers in the Bonneville Pool (a valid concern,

but likely outside the purview of the Hood River Production Program). With respect to

the justification of HRPP production levels, the final paragraph of the response gets to the

main point of the ISRP’s concern, somewhat unsatisfactorily (although what is said is no

doubt true). Detail and references were lacking for this section.

A major concern of the ISRP is the need for an overall monitoring and evaluation plan.

The PI’s acknowledge that more coordination and summarization would be beneficial.

We hope they are able to move forward on this issue.

Finally, the ISRP noted that both proposal and verbal presentation contained little

specific data presentation. The response indicates that the PI’s felt that an undue

emphasis was placed on brevity for both proposals and presentations (this year and

previous years) that precluded presentation of past results. While there is probably some

truth in this viewpoint, the ISRP has been clear and consistent in articulating its

expectations to the region that proposals for continuing projects must contain resultsoriented summaries of past work in order to justify continued support for the project.

Within the proposal, it is appropriate to cite past annual reports and publications that

resulted from the work, but merely citing the reports without summarizing the results and

learning that occurred is not an adequate response. The ISRP has been very clear on this

expectation.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments on the Hood River Subbasin

and Hood River Production Program (HRPP)

The Hood River Subbasin Summary was well written and thorough. The Hood River

group is on the right track with their watershed assessments and rehabilitation plans listed

by priority of action. Concerns are with the hatchery program and the issue of passage at

the dam.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

35

Summer and winter steelhead stocks have been in decline during the 1990s, and are now

down to less than 200 and 300 fish, respectively, and far below the escapement goal of

2,400 fish. A crude recruitment analysis, assuming these fish were, on average, 4 yearsold at return, suggested both stocks are below replacement. The abundance of each

seemed correlated, suggesting factors in the decline are affecting both stocks, now down

to less than 1or 2 fish/km. It is not possible to separate the freshwater from the marine

factors in the decline since no data on wild smolt yield is given. However, the decline is

likely related to marine conditions, as found elsewhere. Data on smolt yield exists (five

rotary screw traps in the watershed) so an analysis of overall smolt yield and return may

be possible. Survivals on hatchery steelhead seemed peculiar in that winter-run hatchery

releases faired worse, at less than 1% from 60,000 releases, than summer-runs, which

apparently had survivals near 3%. Something is odd about this difference - either the

release numbers have varied, summer and winter runs are misidentified, or summer runs

are doing something different (migration pathways?). A more thorough treatment of the

stock assessment information available is required.

The use of wild brood stock for hatchery purposes, while commendable and correct at the

best of times (i.e., when survivals warrant it), is likely depleting the limited wild stock

without increased return, given these poor survival rates. Furthermore, supplementation

is focusing on the wrong life stage if the current limitation is in the smolt-to-adult stage.

It is difficult to separate the "supplementation" from the fish released for harvest. All fish

for harvest should be released below the dam. A review and justification of the

supplementation program is required.

The comparisons and conclusions on acclimation (Figs. 11 and 12 in the summary) suffer

from having no within-year control, and were not in agreement with the presentation on

this issue which indicated there was no benefit to acclimation. Fish released from these

facilities will compete with wild parr and smolts, particularly if a large portion

residualize. Half of the males (perhaps as many as 15,000 of 60,000 releases in this

watershed) may fail to migrate, and compete for food and space with wild fish. They

plan to study residualism, but some information should already be available, and

presented.

A review of the harvest-fish release and returns and consequences to the wild population

is needed. What are the consequences within the Bonneville Pool and elsewhere when

hatchery smolts out-number wild by several fold? Even catch-and-release fishing has an

impact, particularly where effort is high, and this wild population can withstand no

harvest impact. This form of supplementation may be doing more harm than good to the

wild population; likewise for the harvest program.

They should proceed with their watershed rehabilitation plans and hope that these

attempts will improve productivity and capability in freshwater to offset the dramatic

declines in smolt-to-adult survival. Meanwhile, there is a need to do more work on the

latter, including mortality in the downstream migration within the Hood, within the

Bonneville Pool, down the Columbia, at the river mouth, and during the coastal
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

36

migration. Comments above on hatchery harvest and supplementation will apply to

several watersheds, thus an overall review may be required.

Preliminary Recommendation for the set of HRPP proposals: Fundable only if the

response adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns.

Issues to address:

1. The proposals contained little specific data presentation.

2. Quantify the juvenile loss through the Powerdale hydro facility.

3. Consider using PIT tags or acoustic tags in the smolt evaluations.

4. Release all smolts below the dam where the goal is to increase the available harvest

but consider/address the indirect impacts to wild fish from C&R.

5. The turn-back of hatchery steelhead at the ladder has increased straying, and may

have lad to increased angling effort within the lower river (thus further C&R of wild).

Alternatives to turnback should be provided (cull?).

6. What are the consequences of increased hatchery smolt presence within the

Bonneville Reservoir, the lower Columbia River, and at the mouth, and given the

aggregate hatchery releases in the Province and elsewhere?

7. Justify hatchery production levels. In the absence of quantitative stock assessments,

the proposals fail to justify technically the need for the projects presented. For

example, what is the basis for the numbers of hatchery fish to be released?

8. Develop a monitoring and evaluation plan for the separate tasks of harvest

development, supplementation, and habitat rehabilitation.

As with our FY2000 comments, these six projects are inextricably linked together to form

the Hood River Production Program. It was difficult to evaluate each project singly,

particularly with respect to the methods and M&E criteria. The proposals contained little

specific data presentation, in spite of monitoring at some level for up to 6 or seven years.

Presentations were similarly lacking in data presentation and reinforced these

observations.

The Hood River Production Program has many things going for it, including its dedicated

staff, high quality facilities (Powerdale collection site and Parkdale), links between the

habitat restoration efforts and the production program, etc. Nevertheless, the M&E

portion of the program fails to adequately address monitoring and evaluation questions

that are critical to the program’s success. These include quantifying the juvenile loss

through the Powerdale hydro facility, lack of consideration of using PIT tag technology

to gather additional juvenile migration and adult return data, and deeper integration of the

wild and hatchery production components for winter steelhead goals.

Acclimation as a supplementation strategy, as a means to enhance the survivability of

artificially produced smolts released into the watershed, seems not to have been

demonstrated, at least by the data presented in the proposals. Reviewers perceive that a

better strategy for enhancing winter steelhead fisheries would be to release all smolts

below the dam.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

37

Recycling as a fishery-enhancement tactic, returning marked steelhead to the mouth of

the tributary to make them available to harvest again, seems to have been responsible for

enhanced straying into other watersheds; if so the practice is detrimental to the

maintenance of biodiversity in the subbasin and should be curtailed.

Finally, density limits in the Bonneville Pool and lower Columbia River need to be

addressed in this Subbasin Summary and others as a potential factor limiting salmon

productivity. Without appropriate assessment of stocks including survival in the pool and

lower river, and without consideration of density as a potential limiting factor, managers

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

salmon. Reviewers note with concern that proposers in the Hood River program

contemplate doubling of hatchery production as a method of supplementation; the

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

salmon has apparently not been considered.

ProjectID: 198805303

Hood River Production Program - CTWSRO M&E

Sponsor: CTWSRO

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Hood

Short Description: Implement, monitor, and evaluate actions outlined in the Hood River

and Pelton Ladder Master Plans pertaining to smolt production, acclimation, and habitat.

Coordinate Pelton Ladder production.

Sponsor Request FY01: $509,959

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $1,609,959

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable, the response was adequate.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation for the set of HRPP proposals: Fundable only if

the response adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. See subbasin comments, above.

The ISRP’s FY2000 review comments remain germane to this project. Past progress (in

general terms, but not data results) is described; feasibility and value of continuation

seems very high. While the program is still in its early implementation phase, this

proposal (and others in the groups) would have benefited by the inclusion of more results

of previous studies by ODFW and CTWSRO.

The progressive nature of this project warrants publication in peer-reviewed journals. As

project evaluations occur from 2000 through 2007 (based on the four-year minimum

datasets described on pp. 5-6 of the narrative in proposal 1988-053-04), the region and

the fisheries community at large will have great interest in the program’s results. We

encourage project planning that facilitates dissemination of the program’s results through

publication in peer-reviewed journals beyond the required annual reports to BPA.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

38

ProjectID: 198805304

Hood River Production Program - ODFW M&E

Sponsor: ODFW

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Hood

Short Description: Monitor and evaluate actions taken to re-establish spring chinook

salmon, and improve wild production of summer and winter steelhead, in the Hood River

subbasin. Data will be used to develop, and refine, management objectives for the HRPP.

Sponsor Request FY01: $431,331

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $1,321,331

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable, the response was adequate.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation for the set of HRPP proposals: Fundable only if

the response adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. See subbasin comments, above.

The lack of peer-reviewed publications at present is understandable, due to the

incomplete evaluation datasets. Additional years will be required (out to 2007 for some

stocks) to collect the necessary data for evaluation. Nevertheless, the study is likely to

generate results that will be of great interest throughout the basin.

According to the related proposal 1989-029-00, the average spring chinook smolt-toadult return from the 1993, 1994, and 1995 brood years have been ~0.15%. This is far

below the 0.68% SAR target, which suggests that there may be opportunities to improve

survival of hatchery smolts. Perhaps taking 50% of the returning adults for broodstock is

a bit risky until the performance of hatchery releases can be demonstrably improved.

There doesn’t seem to be a mechanism in the set of proposals to evaluate the relative

benefits and risks of bringing 50% of the run into the hatchery versus passing them above

Powerdale Dam for natural reproduction, where SARs may be better (or worse) than for

the hatchery cohort. Provide this evaluation.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

39

ProjectID: 198805307

Hood River Production Program: Powerdale, Parkdale, Oak Springs O&M (88-053-07 &

88-053-08)

Sponsor: CTWS and ODFW

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Hood

Short Description: Restore depressed populations of StS & StW and re-establish a selfsustaining ChS population in the Hood River subbasin. Broodstock will be collected at

the Powerdale Facility. Broodstock will be held and spawned at the Parkdale Fish

Facility.

Sponsor Request FY01: $1,082,983

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $4,796,653

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable, the response was adequate.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation for the set of HRPP proposals: Fundable only if

the response adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. See subbasin comments, above.

The reviewers were concerned by the proposed goal to double hatchery production as a

method of supplementation. This goal seems inconsistent with our understanding of

supplementation (e.g., RASP 1992; SRT Report 1999).

Using data from the proposers own presentation during the site visit, acclimation does not

increase survival, yet they are proposing construction of more acclimation sites. Instead,

we suggest releasing all hatchery winter steelhead smolts below Powerdale Dam, because

of mortality associated with passage at the dam and increased interaction with wild fish in

the river above the dam. Therefore, the need for the acclimation sites is questionable.

The M&E portion of the program (nearly one million dollars between projects

198805304 and 198805303) fails to adequately address questions that are critical to the

program’s success. See comments above on the set of proposals.

With current return levels and the indication of SARs of ~6% for wild steelhead,

compared to SARs of 1% or less for hatchery winter steelhead, why is there a winter

steelhead hatchery program at all? If the preliminary SAR data are indicative of fitness

differences between wild and hatchery produced fish, then continuing the hatchery

program could undermine the fitness of the wild stock. Decisions on when to proceed

with hatchery programs for harvest generation or supplementation for population rebuilding need to be based on demographic information and life-stage survival rates.

In spite of these shortcomings, this was a fairly complete and often detailed proposal. The

project proposal is well crafted and went into some detail about the rationale for the Hood

River Production Program, but contained insufficient detail about performance to date,
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

40

specifically, with respect to escapement and SARs. This was not covered more fully in

the HRPP M&E proposal; thus, the omission from both proposals was surprising since

specific escapement and SAR goals were mentioned for chinook and both races of

steelhead.

ProjectID: 198902900

Hood River Production Program - Pelton Ladder - Hatchery

Sponsor: ODFW

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Hood

Short Description: Re-establish a self-sustaining spring chinook salmon population in

the Hood River subbasin. Broodstock will be collected from Hood River. Broodstock

will be held at the Parkdale Facility. Incubation and rearing will be completed at Round

Butte Hatchery

Sponsor Request FY01: $139534

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $254545

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable, the response was adequate.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation for the set of HRPP proposals: Fundable only if

the response adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. See subbasin comments, above.

The ISRP comments from the FY2000 review of the project proposal remain relevant.

This project is integrally linked to a number of the other key ongoing projects within the

Hood River subbasin. The fish production described in this proposal is critical to the

Hood River Production Program, as it stands defined.

Objectives are well delineated, although the technical details of methodology are not

always so detailed. If procedures are not changing, the details may not be all that

necessary. The methods could better line up with the objectives.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

41

ProjectID: 199500700

Hood River Production - PGE: O&M

Sponsor: PGE

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Hood

Short Description: This contract funds the Facilities O&M at the PGE Pelton Ladder -

Round Butte Hatchery Complex

Sponsor Request FY01: $46300

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $96300

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable, the response was adequate.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

Recommendation for the set of HRPP proposals: Fundable only if the response

adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. See subbasin comments, above.

This is integrally linked to a number of the other key ongoing projects. The fish

production herein is critical to the HRPP as it stands defined. It appears that the original

concerns of using non-native fish have been addressed - unless there are some difficulties

that are not apparent from the narrative. The objectives are listed only in tabular form and

aren’t really objectives, and measurable biological objectives are not really biological

objectives, either (they at least are not clearly stated). This proposal does not follow the

standard write-up. No completion date is given, though the budget goes out through at

least FY 2004. This proposal was not as well justified as the other HRPP proposals.

ProjectID: 199802100

Hood River Fish Habitat Project

Sponsor: CTWSRO

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Hood

Short Description: Implement habitat improvement actions that will support wild fish

and supplementation efforts within the Hood River subbasin as approved by the NPPC

and supported by the BPA Environmental Impact Statement for the Hood River

Production Program (HRPP).

Sponsor Request FY01: $299,953

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $1,699,953

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable. Further ISRP response review was not needed, but the sponsors' unsolicited

response complimented the original proposal. This watershed effort is a good example of

a well run Watershed Council process. With the addition of the document delivered at the
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

42

meeting, Hood River Fish Habitat Protection, Restoration, and Monitoring Plan, the

ISRP’s concerns were addressed.

Many of the ISRP’s FY2000 review comments remain pertinent to our present review of

this project. This is a complex project involving substantial funding from a large number

of sources. It is linked to a number of other projects within the subbasin. The cost share

looks attractive; the rationale looks appropriate. The proposal would have benefited from

more presentation of biological gains, even at this relatively early juncture in the project’s

proposed tenure. We recognize that the project is relatively new and that benefits to fish

and wildlife from habitat improvement projects take time to accrue and measure.

Nevertheless, the project sponsors generally tended to describe past accomplishments in

terms of actions completed without discussing the biological benefits gained from the

action (some of which could have been measured even at this early stage).

The weakest part of the proposal is the lack of a clear evaluation methodology for

assessing long-term success of the alterations. How will success/failure be defined? For

example, “spawning ground surveys will be completed annually to assess the upstream

passage/spawning benefits.” What level of adult returns will be used to define success?

How will variability be addressed? Time lags? At this cost, the project sponsors need to

assure that the work is providing measurable benefits to fish and wildlife. They need to

better document the interaction of this project with 1988-053-03, the monitoring and

evaluation component of the HRPP. See General Issues and comments on the need for an

integrated approach to M&E in the Province across all subbasins. Given smolt yield as a

possible response variable to watershed rehabilitation, is the Hood River a candidate for

detailed monitoring or routine monitoring, and compared to what?

ProjectID: 21014

Mitigate Streambank Sediment Sources in Fifteenmile Watershed using Bioengineering

Techniques

Sponsor: Wasco SWCD

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Fifteenmile

Short Description: Treat seven sites of active streambank erosion using bioengineering

techniques that promote revegetation of banks, dissipates hydrologic energy and create

instream habitat.

Sponsor Request FY01: $159,355

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $202,934

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable. Roll up into an overall watershed restoration plan. Past success with this

approach in the watershed was evident from the site visit. This is costly work thus there

is a need to ensure the habitat is protected from future bank erosion. Do salmonids use

these areas for spawning and rearing? Areas visited did not appear to be prime rearing

habitat. Proponents have been active at this and other tasks in the watershed (fencing,
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

43

etc.). Some indication that major sediment sources are being addressed is required – has

there been a sediment source analysis and is this the key source? The bank erosion work

in this watershed could provide demonstration of the techniques and benefits for other

subbasins in the area with similar plans.

ProjectID: 21019

Fifteenmile Subbasin Water Right Acquisition Program

Sponsor: OWT

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Fifteenmile

Short Description: Acquire 2 cfs of existing Fifteenmile Creek Subbasin water rights on

a voluntary basis and transfer to instream water rights under Oregon state law; target

acquisitions to maximize fulfillment of habitat objectives for instream flows.

Sponsor Request FY01: $32,000

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $128,000

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable, the response is adequate. OWT demonstrates communication and interaction

with Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, and Oregon Water Resources. OWT

describes indicators of ecological benefits and their approach to quantification of the

effects of enhanced streamflow. OWT describes their approach to stewardship, including

documented relationships with OWRD and their own direct efforts on site. The ISRP

encourages OWT to integrate water rights acquisitions into plans for subbasin

rehabilitation, including monitoring and evaluation (stream gages).

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable only if a response is provided that describes how monitoring and evaluation

will be provided that accesses the benefits to fish and wildlife from the water acquisition.

This proposal was highly supported by the reviewers. It complements the other work in

the subbasin. The Oregon Water Trust has a track record in these acquisitions, and the

proposal demonstrates appropriate coordination with other agencies to ensure that the

rights acquired are beneficial to fish. As stated above, the monitoring and evaluation,

especially ecological aspects, needs to be strengthened and better explained and part of

the overall monitoring in this watershed. It may be that other agencies will accomplish

aspects of monitoring and evaluation, but the programs should be explicitly identified in

the proposal and endorsements from the agencies should be provided.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

44

ProjectID: 199801900

Wind River Watershed Restoration

Sponsor: UCD,USFS,USGS-CRRL,WDFW

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Wind

Short Description: Restore habitat within the Wind River subbasin to support healthy

populations of wild steelhead

Sponsor Request FY01: $658,532

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $2,770,221

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable. A thorough and refreshing response was provided that more clearly described

a logical, cost-effective approach than did the original proposal. This appears to be a

well-planned program of restoration based on thorough watershed assessment and

prescription, with an excellent schedule for monitoring and evaluation, that has been

explained well in their response. Their annual reports should be circulated, and they

should be encouraged to publish their results, once obtained, in fisheries journals. If they

proceed as planned, this could be a key demonstration site for the effectiveness of habitat

rehabilitation in the province. A detailed level of evaluation here may eliminate or

reduce the need elsewhere, where only routine monitoring may suffice. They provide

cost justification for their proposed monitoring program.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

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

anticipates Hemlock Dam removal and the restoration of considerable habitat to the

access of anadromous salmon. It is a large, ambitious, well-coordinated restoration

project, but the proposed project is deficient in evaluation and monitoring.

Despite progress in habitat restoration there is no evidence that fish numbers are

increasing.

Interannual variability will mask underlying change in the proposed monitoring approach

more than it would in an approach entailing comparison studies of treated and untreated

watersheds. In this subbasin (and elsewhere) the major limitation on salmon productivity

has been demonstrated to be in the smolt-adult life stage, and not the egg-smolt stage, so

it is necessary to incorporate life stage monitoring into the plans. Such monitoring may

not be necessary everywhere, but an index management system should be included in a

Basin-wide evaluation plan, i.e., collectively select monitoring sites (watersheds) for

comparison of rehabilitation treatment/no treatment and consider ther response variables

for intensive monitoring (e.g., smolts) versus routine monitoring (e.g., snorkle counts of

juveniles in representative sections). See comments under General Issues. Nonetheless,

it is wise to increase freshwater capability and survivals. Can production from sections

treated be compared to untreated sections, including a before-and-after comparison?
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

45

The proposed costs for monitoring juvenile fish and smolts need to be further justified by

providing detail of the approach.

ProjectID: 21009

Assess current and potential salmonid production in Rattlesnake Creek associated with

restoration efforts

Sponsor: UCD, YN, USGS

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: White Salmon

Short Description: Address a unique opportunity to document habitat conditions and

fish population status within the Rattlesnake Creek watershed prior to major habitat

restoration activities and before Condit Dam removal and the reintroduction of

anadromous salmonids.

Sponsor Request FY01: $227,951

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $736,756

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable, the response was adequate to address most of the ISRP concerns. The likely

removal of the Condit dam does provide a unique opportunity and timely need for better

data. However, costs of proposed actions are relatively high. We suggest that the

contract provide a list of deliverables with costs justified adequately.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

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

be a good opportunity for proposers to take full advantage of the opportunity to study the

anadromous – resident fish interactions with the removal of the dam. This is a very well

written proposal that presents good justification for the documentation of pre-restoration

work and the benefit of that work in guiding the direction of restoration. The proposal is

comprehensive, including a wide range of tasks. The discussion of limiting factors was,

however, weak and generic and did not demonstrate a strong understanding of the

system.

Potential information transfer needs to be better described. Costs for assessment and

prescription appear very high, compared to other areas, and need fuller justification. The

proposed cutthroat trout survey work seemed redundant with that proposed by proposal

#21012.

Also, what are the risks to the cutthroat trout population and other resident salmonids

following dam removal, and how will those risks be dealt with?
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

46

ProjectID: 21033

White Salmon River Watershed Enhancement Project

Sponsor: UCD

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: White Salmon

Short Description: A comprehensive, five year plan aimed to improve fish habitat,

riparian and upslope watershed conditions, and land stewardship through direct

restorative actions, cooperative work with stakeholders, and promoting education and

citizen involvement.

Sponsor Request FY01: $242,221

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $801,748

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable. They addressed the ISRP concerns from the FY2000 proposal review. This

proposal presents a convincing case for the benefits of restoring habitat in the White

Salmon watershed, and for the long-term benefits of the education and outreach

accomplished through the formation of a watershed council and technical committee. The

proposal describes good community involvement with a range of activities – watershed

council meetings, trash cleanup, symposium.

Proposers should carefully plan evaluate their M&E (and be prepared to defend its value

in future reviews). Specifically, they should improve their monitoring, especially of

water quality, so that it will not continue to be done "automatically" but will be designed

to be problem-oriented.

ProjectID: 199405400

Bull trout population assessment in the Columbia River Gorge, WA.

Sponsor: WDFW

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Klickitat

Short Description: Determining the status of bull trout populations and developing and

implementing protection and recovery plans will be critical for their continued survival.

This porposal provides the basic data to develop these plans.

Sponsor Request FY01: $155,938

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $500,938

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable. This project applies an agreed sampling protocol and is an integral part of a

broader inventory of Bull trout. Given the listing of this species and the difficulty in

assessing their status, this project must be considered a high priority.

Contrary to the project number, this is a new program begun with BPA funds in March

2000. Columbia River populations of Bull trout were listed as “threatened” under the
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

47

ESA in 1998, and bull trout in the White Salmon and Klickitat as distinct sub-populations

within the Columbia population segment. Obviously there is an understandable

requirement to conduct surveys such as these and this proposal is part of a larger

inventory, the data from which is all be collated via the Rocky Mountain Research

Station. Sampling methods apply an agreed AFS protocol developed to assess Bull trout

due to their fragmented and small populations. Objectives of the program were portrayed

in a logical clear sequence and each has a stated task and method. Within the Basin, the

proposal provides good evidence of interaction with agencies.

While we support this investigation and the application of a sampling protocol, the nature

of bull trout populations and the apparent difficulties in locating populations lead us to

discuss two additional suggestions. If the populations are fragmented and small,

encountering them during a snorkel survey (protocol method) is likely to be a rare event.

However, the investigators could experiment with low-light videography at fixed

locations/habitats were bull trout were known to exist or are suspected. Such a fixed

station could greatly increase the numbers of hours sampled as opposed to the distance

covered during a snorkel survey. Secondly, the review panel heard of two bull trout

recoveries in cool water refugees along the north shore of the Bonneville Pool. These

observations were from sport fishermen who by chance encountered these fish. If these

investigators need to locate spawning and rearing populations of bull trout, could a

targeted program to net or sport fish for adfluvial bull trout in these cool refugees provide

a means to capture pre-adults for radio-tagging? Shore-based fixed monitors could detect

entrance of the tagged fish and portable monitors could subsequently be used to monitor

distribution within rivers. Given the difficulty in detecting this species, we recommend

that the investigators examine several means to assess their status.

A significant concern identified by the review panel was the presence of brook trout in

the Klickitat River and the possible competition and/or introgression with bull trout. We

strongly recommend this aspect of investigation be incorporated in the genetic analyses

and habitat surveys.

ProjectID: 21027

Inventory and Assess Amphibian Populations in the Klickitat Subbasin

Sponsor: YN

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Klickitat

Short Description: Conduct an initial assessment of amphibian populations primarily

within the previously unsurveyed Yakama Reservation. Use data to identify critical

habitat areas and establish baseline for effectiveness monitoring of restoration efforts.

Sponsor Request FY01: $135,797

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $401,391

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable, the response was adequate. The proponents were agreeable to reducing the

plan to three years from five. The detail on probable collection methodology was
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

48

generally satisfactory, but reviewers would like to see a little more confidence about

appropriate sampling methods.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable for 3 years, instead of the five years proposed, but only if the response

adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. They need to define the sampling procedure in

more detail and use established protocols.

This is an innovative proposal that outlines a logical sequence of tasks to achieve the

population assessments and develop ecological (riparian) indicator species. Objectives

are presented in a logical sequence and involve the establishment of sampling protocols

to establish repeatable surveys. Some reviewers felt these protocols were established but

during the stated consultations with “experts” these sampling processes will be resolved.

There is a laudable amount of scientific consultation and review throughout. The plan to

send annual reports out for scientific review is excellent but we also suggest a definite

plan to present results at meetings and through journal articles, rather than “may be.”

To develop amphibians as ecological indicators, consideration must also be given as to

what “ecosystem” they are indicative of? If the interest is in indicators of quality riparian

wetlands, then what are the amphibians being measured against and how will standards

for the indicators be developed? If amphibians are to be used as indicators of some

higher order ecosystem, for example, spring chinook in the upper Klickitat, then the

investigator must establish that the amphibian species are truly indicators of the

environment important to spring chinook. We can not simply presume that a species is

an indicator for the habitat needs or status of another species, demonstrating these

linkages are essential in establishing the use of indicator species.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

49

ISRP Fundable or Not Reviewed and No Comparison with CBFWA

Recommendations: Policy Issues

ProjectID: 21005

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

within the Columbia Gorge Ecoprovince

Sponsor: NHI

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Columbia Gorge

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

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

consistent within the NWPPC Framework wildlife-habitat relationships process.

Sponsor Request FY01: $58,521

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $58,521

CBFWA Recommendation: Do Not Fund

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Technically sound. Fundable if

needed in subbasin assessment by EDT.

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable as amended. The technical difficulties were adequately resolved in the

response. If funded, we would recommend that the field validation be conducted in a

‘blind’ study and that they report the percent of the original target of, say 75, random

points in each habitat type that was not accessed during field validation of the map.

The response did not contain a direct expression of a need by the fish and wildlife

managers at a regional level. For example, there were no letters of support from the fish

and wildlife project managers, although participants at the subbasin meetings were

supportive and expressed that they would use the maps. The ISRP agrees with CBFWA

that if habitat mapping at the proposed scale is primarily to be used for the EDT

component of the NWPPC habitat assessment process, then the project should be

endorsed by those using EDT and perhaps funded through the EDT development process.

CBFWA Comments from DAIWP: This project is currently being funded under the

Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment project by the NWPPC. The need for expansion of

this project to produce finer resolution within each province should be determined

through the EDT assessment process. If that process determines that finer resolution is

necessary for regional planning, then funding for expansion should be provided through

the NWPPC subbasin assessment effort.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

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

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

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

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

should be included. This might better be left to local resource managers to evaluate with
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

50

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

before the project could be recommended for funding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific comments and questions.

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

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

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

which could not be accessed in the field be reported? Will all 32 classes be ground

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

points to be visited in each class? What is the criterion and sample size to have an

accuracy of 75% on each class? Will the lower limit of a 95% confidence interval be

required to be above 0.75? It was stated during the oral presentation that if the criteria are

failed for some class, then a completely new random sample of points from that class

would be visited in the field? We would like to see this commitment more clearly

expressed in the proposal. Will the field-testing be conducted blind, i.e., will field

personnel not know the “office classification” before they visit a random point in the

field? What are the criteria for identification of each of the 32 classes when the biologist

is standing at a random point in the field?

2. Are this proposal and its sister proposal in the Inter-Mountain Province the initial

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

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

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

utility of the project.

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

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

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

procedure.

These comments and recommendations mirror those for the Inter-Mountain proposal,

#21006.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

51

ProjectID: 21015

Riparian Buffers

Sponsor: Wasco SWCD

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Fifteenmile

Short Description: Implements riparian buffer program using cost share provided by

USDA, state of Oregon, and private landowners

Sponsor Request FY01: $73,414

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $226,914

CBFWA Recommendation: Do Not Fund

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: The position looks valid and

offers potential benefit. However, funding the position is a policy decision and raises

programmatic issues.

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable. This one FTE should also be part of the watershed assessment and restoration

team. This application should be considered in the other watersheds under an integrated

plan.

This proposal is to take advantage of federal incentive programs to implement riparian

buffer contracts with private landowners. It convincingly describes the potential benefits

that could be added to previous riparian protection efforts by using existing federal

programs. Good detail on cost-sharing and coordination with other agencies is provided.

The project’s objective – to implement at least 36 riparian buffer agreements - is specific

and measurable. CREP plans and FSA requirements will provide monitoring of buffer

strip outcomes. This proposal will monitor the progress of implementing agreements.

CBFWA Comments from DAIWP: This is a proposal to fund one full time equivalent

employee at the Wasco Soil and Water Conservation District strictly to process and

implement 36 new Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and Conservation Reserve

Enhancement Program (CREP) riparian buffer system agreements. The US Department

of Agriculture funds these programs. There are currently 13 participants in the program

signed up and at least 36 additional landowners in the Fifteenmile Subbasin that have

expressed interest in entering into long term riparian buffer agreements through these

programs. The fish and wildlife managers strongly support this project, however,

funding through BPA would raise legitimate in-lieu funding issues. Therefore the fish

and wildlife managers believe this project should be funded through another program (ie.

US Department of Agriculture).
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

52

ProjectID: 21028

Klickitat Watershed and Habitat Enhancement Project

Sponsor: YN

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Klickitat

Short Description: This project will compliment ongoing habitat enhancement projects

throughout the Klickitat basin by protecting parcels of high-quality habitat and restoring

degraded upland and riparian habitat via acquisition, conservation easements and longterm lease.

Sponsor Request FY01: $2,741,360

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $9,001,360

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: NA

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

No decision, this project is not amenable to scientific review. This could have significant

fish and wildlife benefits but without knowing the potential purchases it is impossible to

know if the potential will be realized. Further, the presenter noted that the project was

not integrated with the watershed assessment and habitat rehabilitation efforts in the

basin. Support for this type of proposal for land acquisition is more a policy decision

than science, but given that:

a) the proposal has not been integrated with other Klickitat proposals (as noted above),

b) it lacks specific actions to evaluate, and

c) if this panel needs to be consistent in providing recommendations across proposals; we

would advise NOT to fund this proposal on the basis of this ISRP review process.

The proponents need to reference a watershed assessment and described a fully

developed plan with subbasin level goals and objectives that justify the purchases.

If this trust fund principle was applied across all the basins it would use up all the BPA

funds. A notable benefit to this process appears to be that in the Yakima this approach

has drawn in cost-sharing contributions. This is not science but land management;

nevertheless, likely an important aspect of the rehabilitation work required. There is

clearly merit in having funds available to opportunistically purchase land when it

becomes available, but should this advantage be provided to only one watershed?
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

53

ISRP and CBFWA Agree: Do Not Fund

ProjectID: 21010

Feeding, growth, and smoltification of juvenile steelhead infested with the ciliated

protozoan, Heteropolaria lwoffi

Sponsor: USGS-CRRL, USFWS

Province: Gorge

Subbasin: Wind

Short Description: Infestations of Heteropolaria lwoffi on the body, eyes, and gills of

wild juvenile steelhead may interfere with feeding success, growth, and smoltification,

lowering parr to smolt and smolt to adult survival of fish in the Wind River subbasin.

Sponsor Request FY01: $106,988

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $467,132

CBFWA Recommendation: Do Not Fund

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Do Not Fund

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Do not fund. A response was not warranted. Compelling evidence that the infestations

are limiting salmon production is lacking in that smolt production has increased over the

years that the infestation has been documented. There is no indication of the extent of the

infestation in salmon populations. There is no indication of lethality or of a proposed

study of lethality. There is no indication of the actions that might be taken if infestations

are limiting salmon productivity. This project would be better focused on the natural

populations rather than on laboratory studies (Why has there been infestation on parr, but

not on smolt?) An appropriate study would probably be accomplished in less than four

years, would be incorporated into regional fish pathology programs, and would be

pertinent to subbasin limiting factors. If in fact this is a significant health problem, a

different project should be proposed that focuses on the natural populations.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

54

Inter-Mountain Proposals

ISRP Disagrees with CBFWA: ISRP Fundable and CBFWA

Recommended Action or Do Not Fund

ProjectID: 21025

Intermountain Province Resident Fish Symposium

Sponsor: LRF

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: Inter-Mountain

Short Description: The Lake Roosevelt Forum will develop, coordinate, promote and

convene an annual three-day symposium dealing with resident fish programs and related

research within the Intermountain Province, with particular emphasis on the Lake

Roosevelt Subbasin.

Sponsor Request FY01: $41,000

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $129,297

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Disagree with CBFWA priority.

This is a high priority project that deserves funding. It would help remedy some of the

problems pervading the suite of fisheries projects in the Inter-Mountain province. The

ISRP agrees with CBFWA that wildlife issues should be included in this or a parallel

symposium.

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable. This well-written proposal deserves strong support. It presents a compelling

argument for the benefits of an annual symposium to provide evaluation and information

exchange on resident fish research. The proposal makes clear linkages to the FWP. The

annual symposium would be a valuable contribution to the fisheries program in the InterMountain Province and would produce lasting benefits for a relatively low budget. Based

on the ISRP’s site visit, fisheries management and research in the Inter-Mountain

Province appear to lag behind the standard of quality exhibited in the province’s wildlife

management and research program. The resident fish symposium proposed by the Lake

Roosevelt Forum could be an important organizing and energizing event for the

province’s fisheries program.

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

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

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

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

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

pertinent overarching subjects as restoration ecology and management, and relationships

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

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

in discussions) by all professional personnel involved in the Inter-Mountain program.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

55

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

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

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

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

the aquatic and terrestrial projects.

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

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

extensive experience developing educational events that include public outreach, thus

ensuring the success of this project.

CBFWA Comments from DAIWP: The symposium must also include wildlife issues in

the Inter-Mountain Province. Emphasis must be placed on attracting the general public,

and agencies outside CBFWA. Most of the criteria developed for this review are not

applicable to this type of project (i.e. information exchange). This project should be

supported, funded and implemented through the NWPPC's subbasin planning effort.

ProjectID: 21002

Early life history and survival of adfluvial rainbow trout in the San Poil River Basin

Sponsor: PNNL

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: San Poil

Short Description: Investigate overwintering behavior and survival of juvenile adfluvial

rainbow trout in the San Poil River drainage and examine relationships between habitat

parameters and survival.

Sponsor Request FY01: $155,092

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $495,092

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Disagree with CBFWA priority.

This is a high priority project that deserves funding. This proposal has generic application

across the province. What is learned here could eliminate a significant bottleneck for

resident salmonids and anadromous salmonids (if introduced).

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable. This was viewed as an excellent proposal in all respects. It examines a time

period (winter) when mortality of juvenile salmonid fishes is high but causes of death are

poorly understood. During the field tour there was ample evidence that habitat in streams

throughout the subbasin was impacted by land use practices enough that winter fish

habitat was probably far below optimal, and in some cases almost non-existent. Results

of the proposed study should assess that possibility and identify critical habitat needs. It

will be especially important for the PIs to actively involve biologists from the Colville

Consolidated Tribe and Colville National Forest and for them to be proactive in

communicating results to other land managers in the province.

The proposal's PIs have strong publication records and substantial winter research

experience. They are very well qualified to perform outstanding work on a key topic
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

56

here. Videography under ice is largely an untested technique, but probably worth a try

here.

CBFWA Comments from DAIWP: The [rainbow trout] population has persisted for

years under the stated conditions

Mule Deer Projects:

ProjectID: 21023

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

the "apparent competition " hypothesis

Sponsor: WSU

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: Inter-Mountain

Short Description: Determine if increasing white-tailed deer and resulting increased

cougar predation are responsible for mule deer population declines in the IM Columbia

basin.

Sponsor Request FY01: $205,532

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $531,625

CBFWA Recommendation: DNF

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Disagree. This research proposal

is fundable and should be of equal or higher priority than project 21029, because it

clearly establishes that predators may be a limiting factor and is more scientifically

sound. The ISRP can not eliminate either “food” or “fang” as potential limiting factors in

deer populations. Further, it would be inappropriate to strip tasks from this proposal and

add them to 21029 without agreement of the project sponsors and the offer to include

Washington State University in the budget as a subcontractor to complete those tasks.

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable. The response addressed major concerns and the project as now cast should be a

valuable contribution and sound science. The ISRP supports large field experiments of

this type, and accepts that large-scale field studies should not be held to the same design

standards as are laboratory studies. However, the ISRP notes that individual animals are

not independent replications of the treatments in this study, as in other similar large-scale

field studies. Large-scale field studies are a mixture of experimental and observational

study that can lead to trustworthy inferences if replicated in time and space, as in this

study. The use of individual deer (or individual lions) as the sample size is not justified

by the design, but by assumption, and these assumptions may be incorrect. Study areas

receive the treatment or control designation, not individual deer. All deer in one area

may simply be more (or less) susceptible to predation because of habitat or other

unmeasured factors.

The bottom line from a design point of view is that there are repeated measurements over

years on two blocks (pairs) with no replication within the blocks, i.e, a repeated measures

randomized block design with 2 blocks that requires the assumption of no block by

treatment interaction. The data can be analyzed with the replicate study areas (N=2)

because of the random assignment of treatment to units as recognized by the author in the
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

57

first paragraph of the section ‘Cougar Aggregative Response.’ The design is adequate as

given, but the authors need to revisit the issue of statistical analysis and the assumption of

independence of actions among animals. Any analysis that treats individual deer or lions

as replicates should be acknowledged as pseudoreplicated and the outcome compared

with analysis as described above. We disagree with CBFWA’s recommendation to fund

project 21029 but not this project. Of the two, which together could make a nice multifactor study of mule deer ecology, 21023 is the better proposal, having both stronger and

more compelling technical background and more clear and adequate experimental design

and sampling methods.

CBFWA Comments from DAIWP: This is a proposal to test the apparent competition

hypothesis by conducting a controlled, replicated “press” experiment in two treatment

and two control areas of the Inter-Mountain subbasins by reducing densities of whitetailed deer and observing any changes in cougar predation on mule deer. Due to the fact

that this proposed work is evaluating a predation issue, the fish and wildlife managers

judged that this proposal was inappropriate for Direct Program funding. However, the

managers believe that some of the tasks should be funded under Project Number 21029.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

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

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

needed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

considered independent samples, then the proposal should acknowledge that this involves
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

58

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

followed.

ProjectID: 21029

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

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

Sponsor: WDFW

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: Inter-Mountain

Short Description: We are proposing a cooperative, five-year research investigation

involving the WDFW, the lead agency, and Washington State University (WSU), a

collaborating agency, to assess the role of habitat in maintaining mule deer numbers.

Sponsor Request FY01: $133,650

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $325,250

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, fundable only if clear and

adequate design specifications are established for the field component during the Council

review or BPA contracting process. However, it would be inappropriate to strip tasks

from proposal 21023 and add them to 21029 without agreement of the project sponsors

and the offer to include Washington State University in the budget as a subcontractor to

complete those tasks.

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fund, but only if clear and adequate design specifications are established for the field

component during the Council review or BPA contracting process. The field portion of

this proposal suffers from the same problem of pseudoreplication as does Project #21023.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

59

The ISRP supports large field experiments of this type, and accepts that large-scale field

studies should not be held to the same design standards as are laboratory studies.

However, the ISRP notes that individual animals are not independent replications of the

treatments in this study. Large-scale field studies are a mixture of experimental and

observational study that can lead to trustworthy inferences if replicated in time and space,

as in #21023. The use of individual deer as the sample size is not justified by the design,

but by assumption, and these assumptions may be incorrect. Deer are themselves not the

subject of treatment. For instance, all deer in one area may simply be more (or less)

susceptible to limited forage because of isolated snowstorms or other unmeasured factors.

The bottom line from a design point of view is that there are repeated measurements over

years on apparently two study areas (control and treatment), i.e, a repeated measures

observational study with no replication. The authors need to revisit the issue of statistical

analysis and the assumption of independence of actions among animals. Any analysis that

treats individual deer as replicates should be acknowledged as pseudoreplicated. Also, the

author did not adequately ensure unbiased field sampling procedures for collection of

fecal pellet sample and forage samples, and the spatial arrangement of locations for radio

tagging or collection of animals was not adequately addressed. Some of the responses

concerning statistical analysis are naïve, but would be easily fixed with a senior level

biometrician as a team member.

We disagree with CBFWA’s suggestion that tasks be transferred from 21023 to 21029

unless the project sponsor of 21029 agrees fully with this and is included as a

subcontractor in the budget. The transfer of parts of a project without free consent of the

project’s director would be a major violation of intellectual property rights and such

practice of idea-stripping could have severe negative long-term effects on the quality of

science produced under BPA funding. Further, the technical background in both

proposals suggests that this project should not proceed without 21023, because project

21023 provides strong, though indirect, evidence that a predator is a key factor in the

decline of mule deer.

CBFWA Comments from DAIWP: Some tasks from Project 21023 should be

incorporated into this project.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

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

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

references cited.

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

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

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

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

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

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

previous work. This project complements an ongoing cooperative project being
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

60

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

cooperative project.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

should be presented and justified.

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

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

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

the standard statistical packages.

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

followed.

ISRP Disagrees with CBFWA: ISRP Do Not Fund and

CBFWA High Priority or Recommended Action

ProjectID: 21020

Monitor and Enhance the Lakes and Streams of the Spokane Indian Reservation

Sponsor: STOI

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt

Short Description: Monitor current and future hatchery stocking of 4 interior lakes.

Monitor natural and hatchery fish stocks in streams within the Spokane Indian

Reservation. Enhance lakes and streams to maximize mitigation benefits to tribal

members.

Sponsor Request FY01: $92,177

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $281,177

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Disagree, Do Not Fund.

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Do not fund. This proposal appears to be in the developmental stage. It may be

appropriate to fund this proposal on a pilot level for development of a scientifically sound

plan. The sponsor addressed most but not all ISRP comments adequately, then went on to
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

61

rewrite the proposal. Instead of devising a strong, well constructed revision, the proposal

remains confusing. For example, it contains the comment that the new plan would likely

require one year of biological evaluation followed by some undescribed engineering

evaluation and a monitoring program reduced to oxygen and temperature profiling. Risk

is high that this project as described will show little benefit after several years of funding.

Sampling designs were not specified. In the revised text, the sponsor references literature

sources on sampling design, which could be used, although those sources do not appear

in the reference list. It cannot be assumed that proper design will be developed in terms

of assuring that the sampling sites are large enough, numerous enough, and selected well

enough to adequately represent the streams and fish stocks involved.

The use of single-pass electrofishing is questionable, even in “small” streams because

single-pass electrofishing cannot be relied upon to capture 100% of the fish, so

abundance cannot be assessed unless at least two passes are made, using an appropriate

mark-recapture or multiple-removal method. Also, the response about types of

electrofishing current (pulsed and unpulsed DC) demonstrates uncertainty about what is

involved. In unpulsed DC electrofishing, fish do swim to the anode. Conductivity of the

water is more likely the key to whether unpulsed or pulsed DC is appropriate. Unpulsed

DC is well established and in widespread use. In the proposal, the advantages of

unpulsed DC are not recognized, resulting in the potential for wasted sampling effort and

damage to fish populations.

The list of “Known General Limiting Factors” on p. 6 is a very good idea but contains

some odd items. Fecal coliform are a human health matter. References to effects on fish

should be given. “Farming/grazing” is an area of human or human-generated activity that

can damage fish habitat but to state it as a “limiting factor” is not very helpful. It would

be more useful to say what the farming/grazing is actually doing to the fish habitat. For

example, “overstory removal” may cause adverse thermal effect that is a limiting factor.

On revision p. 11, in 2nd paragraph of the methods for task c, the proposal should

indicate what is being sampled within the lakes.

The proposal’s management plan 1 (p. 8) and response Objective 2 (p. 9) involves

stocking (native?) salmonids in tributaries. The proposal includes measures to reduce

competing non-native species, but this task is not included in the response. The response

indicates that monitoring angling removals of planted (or wild) fish by creel survey is not

feasible, and lays out an electrofishing plan to monitor effects of planting the trout and

effects of measures to reduce competing non-native fishes (p. 9). Presumably, there will

be an attempt to relate the fish indices obtained by electrofishing to the planting of trout

and possibly to removal of other species. Without information on angling removals,

difficult as that information may be to obtain, it seems unlikely that valid conclusions

about the effectiveness of management measures can result. Thought should be given to

obtaining at least some “index” of relative angling effort among the tributaries. Perhaps

one could assume that fishing removes similar portions of the planted trout and the nonnative species. Further thought needs to be given to this point.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

62

CBFWA Comments from DAIWP: CBFWA technical review of original proposal:

methods do not exist for stock assessment, habitat, etc. Identification of methods and the

sampling design/application of such methods needs to be strengthened. The time frame

identified in Objective 3 is troublesome. Rewrite Objective 3 so that it has realistic

accomplishments and time periods. Objective 3, task c is not tied to M&E as well as c in

obj2 and d in obj1. In the rewrite, clearly identify long-term benefit potential. A total of

$10,000 will be contributed from various sources. This information must be identified in

the revised proposal.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

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

needs to be re-written. The proposal is sketchy and sometimes unclear. It does not

reference any pertinent fundamental scientific literature, only gray literature on the local

situation. Therefore, the technical and scientific background is deficient.

This should be an important M&E project for hatcheries (e.g., Spokane Tribal Hatchery)

that are stocking the reservation waters and for native populations in streams, but the

proposal does not convince us that the project is being properly conducted. Much of the

background material is helpful. The map was appreciated. The general rationale and

relationship to other projects are good. The objectives are good, but the methods are weak

(it is stated what would be done, but not how). There should be much value to fish from

this project if it is reworked. It meets consistency criteria.

The scientific/technical background provides much detail on conditions of tributaries and

creeks but doesn’t lay out the central problem in a clear way. For how long have hatchery

fish been stocked, and what is known about the effects? Given that healthy tributaries are

needed, why do the researchers need to determine the limiting factors when they state

(p.6) that limiting factors are levels of dissolved oxygen combined with temperatures?

Later on that page it states that this project will produce carrying capacity objectives for

each water body. This is different from identifying limiting factors.

The sampling design needs detail. If it hasn’t yet been developed, then at least the likely

literature sources for it should be shown. If the sampling methods and designs are not yet

set, then how can facilities, equipment and staffing be thought adequate?

Data would be gathered upon which to manage four "lakes" that total 75 acres and

apparently provide little angling. This appears to be a low-priority situation. Even if the

priority is adequate to warrant keeping this as part of the project, we are not convinced

that it is necessary to monitor all the physical and chemical characteristics of these lakes.

The limiting factors seem to have already been identified as anoxia and high

temperatures. The proposal mentions possible evaluation of measures to destratify the

lakes. Such an engineering evaluation may be more to the point than further studies to

refine details of the problem. The stated objectives are rather general and vague. The

proposal states that it is designed to “monitor (fish) stocking of 4 interior lakes”, yet there

is no mention of conducting a creel survey either by this project or another one. The catch
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

63

of stocked fish probably ought to be the first focus of a monitoring program. Estimates of

carrying capacity in the lakes that are mentioned are unlikely to be useful if they are

derived from the plan described.

One proposal objective is to monitor trout populations in the tributaries. Obviously, such

populations and “assemblages” can be strongly affected by fishing. Again, where is the

creel census and sampling design?

Also, tributaries to Lake Roosevelt will be sampled to secure 5 spawning populations of

wild kokanee. This task has higher potential value for Lake Roosevelt fishery.

Before improvements in culverts or diversions (p. 9) are made to enable fish passage, the

risks of damage to upstream native fish stocks by new stocks that move in should be

considered.

On narrative p. 8, paragraph 2, “instream structures” are mentioned. What kind were

they? What was their exact purpose? Similarly, in the next paragraph, reference to

“habitat restoration and connectivity efforts” is vague.

P. 9, last paragraph: What does “direct and indirect habitat improvement” mean?

The intentions regarding information transfer are unclear. This project should result in

reports containing analyses and interpretation, not just in the data base that is indicated on

p. 2 of the proposal’s part 1.

“Elecroshocking index sites” are mentioned (p. 9, paragraph 3). The type of

electrofishing gear to be used may well be the backpack units mentioned later in the same

paragraph for removing non-native fish. If so, this probably involves pulsed direct

current, and its drawbacks in terms of high rates of fish injury and death should be

acknowledged. The advantages of using far less destructive unpulsed DC (non-backpack

units) should be considered. The Montana Department of Fish Wildlife & Parks has

banned use of pulsed DC for sampling fish in that state.

Question: When restoration of anadromous fish populations above Grand Coulee is

mentioned, it is not clear that you really mean anadromous fish. The emphasis is on

habitat improvement. Please clarify.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

64

ProjectID: 199502800

Restore Moses Lake Recreational Fishery

Sponsor: WDFW

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt

Short Description: Restore/enhance the failed recreational fishery for resident species in

Moses Lake, once the premier fishery for resident game fish in the Columbia Basin, in

lieu of lost recreational anadromous fisheries.

Sponsor Request FY01: $213,72

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $653,676

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Disagree, Do Not Fund

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Do not fund, the response and the original proposal do not demonstrate a scientifically

sound project. The project is not adequate to address the tremendously complex situation

in Moses Lake. The proposal does not adequately address alternative reasons why the

fishery has declined to the current low level. The project sponsors should consult with

the Banks Lake project sponsors for approaches to a lake-wide study.

Problems with the scope and conceptual basis for this project remain. That said, the

response did show good effort and good progress. It was disconcerting that the

researchers requested additional advice as to which tasks should have been deleted,

modified, or added. We are concerned that the proposal did not contain evidence of logic

and understanding of the situation. There is risk that the project as proposed will gather

several years of data that may not help in managing the panfish of Moses Lake.

The proposal and the responses to ISRP comments focus on investigational techniques

and clear up details concerning them and various facts about Moses Lake. However,

relationships among limnologic, fish community, and fishery processes (at least

embodied in the literature concerning appropriate past studies) have not been brought to

bear on the problem. Measurement techniques regarding fish populations, fish diet, and

limnology that are important for analyzing the perceived problem of decline in Moses

Lake’s recreational fishery have been described. However, investigational methods are

not the only important part of the proposal. The project should build upon the history of

the results of previous individual and comprehensive studies of lake and reservoir fishery

problems.

Overall guidance from an independent senior investigator may be warranted. Specifically,

in response (unnumbered p 5) to our comment that the project would benefit from

consultation with a senior scientist specializing in limnology, the sponsor states that a

Washington Dept of Ecology limnologist, has been sub-contracted to perform certain

measurements. This response speaks only to technical matters (sampling). Project

guidance on overall limnological processes and on relationships to conditions for

reproduction, growth, and survival of the fishes (and other, associated organisms) would

be even more important.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

65

The original proposal and many of the responses were poorly presented. For example,

although tables of statistics provided in the responses help clarify some of the ISRP

comments, certain inadequacies in them, such as units of measurement not being shown

and the vague dates of measurement, make the information difficult to understand. In

response Attachment A, Hypothesis 3 is “Recruitment of panfish is limited by primary

productivity.” Immediately following this, the supposedly applicable Task 1.3 reads as

follows: “Conduct zooplankton density and species composition study,” and the methods

described under that deal with zooplankton. Primary productivity refers to tissue

produced in the form of phytoplankton and other plants, not zooplankton

During the Spokane discussion, panel members pointed to the proposal’s lack of

reference to past studies concerning effects of carp on lakes and results from reducing

carp populations. The response did not followed up on this comment.

The sampling scheme for the creel survey identifies 16 weekdays and 4 weekend days per

month for sampling, resulting in a higher sampling rate on week days than weekend days.

This may be less efficient than a stratified sampling scheme that would sample in

proportion to the expected total catch (which is the parameter of interest). If the sponsors

have some estimates of expected fishing rates that support the recommended sampling

scheme, those data should be presented.

It would be helpful for the sponsor to discuss the Lake Moses situation in terms of the life

history requirements of each fish species involved. It also would be useful to examine the

present study of Banks Lake, which the reviewers found better formulated.

The Panel concluded that work on this project should halt until the conceptual approach

is improved. Moses Lake and its fishery obviously represent a huge complex of

problems. Any attempt to analyze them will require better direction and insight than is

evidenced in the proposal and responses.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

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

sponsors should incorporate material presented at the meeting and revisions should be

better focused on the causes of fish species shifts and their potential management, e.g.

those actions that have more potential for pay off. The proposal was inadequate, but the

presentation cleared up some of the ISRP concerns. There is need for thinning the tasks.

This is a project for conducting research, evaluation, and mitigation to restore a onceproductive warm-water panfish fishery in Moses Lake. It is included in the Intermountain

subbasin because it receives water from the Columbia River via diversion from Lake

Roosevelt through Banks Lake. Management of Moses Lake is considered

substitution/mitigation for loss of anadromous salmonids above Chief Joseph Dam.

Although listed as a 1995 project, it has been funded for one year.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

66

The project seems to be off to a good start by compiling past records and monitoring the

system. Presentation of this information was informative and interesting. Species

composition in terms of numbers does not fully support the suggested trends, although

biomass does it better.

However, this is a poorly developed proposal that has problems, although the oral

presentation was much better and alleviated many concerns. The proposal seems not

founded on a basic understanding of lake processes, thus not directed toward

investigating why the ecosystem fails to support the desired fishery—or a suitable

substitute for it. It is not clear why the fishery declined. It is imperative to know what

the problem is before solutions can be found. The project proposal is concentrated on

superficial fishery matters and doesn’t get at the underlying habitat system. Some of the

deficiencies were identified in last year’s review.

The project would benefit from consultation with a senior scientist specializing in

limnology. The history of change in the lake’s drainage basin (vegetation, soils, land use,

other human activities, hydrology, etc.) should be examined, as well as basic change in

basic lake characteristics (limnology). Several basic questions need study. What are the

lake’s depth and wetted basin shape? Thermal stratification? Seasonal dissolved oxygen

profiles? Macrophyte types and extent? Ice cover? Do Dissolved Oxygen levels ever

become critical? What are the concentrations of toxic chemicals in the lake water? What

is the status of reproductive habitat for the various species of fish? What is their

reproductive success in different habitats? Where do the trout come from? Were they

stocked? Were other fish stocked? The proposal, despite its various tables of data, does

not touch adequately on any of these questions.

Various graphs in the proposal are labeled as growth of fish, whereas they are really just

length-at-age plots, from which growth rates are difficult even to infer. They were not

drawn in such a way as to show growth. Sample sizes and variances are not indicated.

Specific comments relate to certain objectives. The objective for a fish diet study seems

too large in scope (includes too many non-critical species). Also, gillnetting is not an

effective tool for a feeding study because of regurgitation. The objective to conduct a

population estimate (p 21) does not adequately demonstrate how this will be

accomplished. The objective of obtaining more age data is not critical to rational

management – a good idea of age and growth is already available. The same may be said

regarding GIS maps, except as incidental to other tasks. On the whole, this study plan

needs modification, largely to trim tasks to a critical few, and re-review.

The population trends look very much like those seen when common carp take over a

lake in the eastern United States. This observation is strengthened by the proposal’s

comment that commercial carp harvest had been curtailed for lack of a market. Fishery

management in such cases has been to stimulate carp harvest, either commercial or

through angler incentives (e.g., carp derbies which can be fun for all ages, youth carp

fishing days, spearing carp along shore during spawning). Once carp numbers are
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

67

reduced, other species such as the panfishes may bounce back on their own. An outside

advisor familiar with managing such carp lakes could be a benefit to the project.

On further revision of the study plan, the project should have a good benefit for fish, and

it meets the consistency criteria.

CBFWA Comments from DAIWP:Very little CBFWA comment was provided.

ProjectID: 21035

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

Sponsor: WDFW

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt

Short Description: Construct and operate a pumped water trapping facility to capture

and spawn a locally adapted, indigenous stock of redband rainbow trout for subsequent

use in the subbasin.

Sponsor Request FY01: $126,000

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $199,671

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Disagree, Do Not Fund

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Do not fund. The reworked proposal, provided as an unsolicited response, does not

adequately address the ISRP concerns. A project objective is stocking of redband trout in

the Kettle River, but no biological justification for this is shown. Various aspects of the

project concept are laudable, especially the attempt to replace the stocking of non-native

rainbow trout with native redband trout and intent to reduce entrainment loss (see further

comment below), but severe deficiencies of the proposal and response do not inspire

confidence that the project will be successful

The response text continued to be poorly presented. Problems include unnumbered pages,

poor logic, incompleteness (thoughts not fully developed, literature referenced in text but

not shown in the references section), inaccuracy (“locally adapted kokanee stock” from

Kootenai Lake, B.C.?), and needless repetition. For future proposals, we suggest using

independent biological and editorial help.

The proposal should show better coordination with the Lake Roosevelt Fisheries

Evaluation Program to ensure that a monitoring and evaluation protocol will be in place

to measure its merits. In this situation, scientific evaluation should be mainly concerned

with measuring “entrainment” of the new fish stock, compared with the present stock,

and with evaluating effects of emigrants on genetic integrity of downstream stocks. The

present proposal deals with trap construction and relies on the Lake Roosevelt Fishery

Evaluation Project for this measurement, but review of that proposal reveals no reference

to the Phalon Lake Fish Trap. It appears that the fish trap evaluation is to depend on

information collected on upstream and downstream movement of planted fish without

any planned formal study design or statistical analysis related to the primary question

raised in the Phalon Lake Project; i.e., are there any demonstrable advantages to using
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

68

this particular stock of fish? Problems with monitoring and evaluation are apparently

partly the responsibility of the Lake Roosevelt Fishery Evaluation Project, but this

proposal should present evidence that adequate monitoring and evaluation will be

conducted.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

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

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

scientifically sound concept.

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

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

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

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

products.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

be done, etc. with review by WDFW would be welcome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

insidious effects of hybridization on indigenous stocks.

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

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

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

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

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

program(s) with native stocks. There is a significant and rich literature that addresses the
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

69

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

does, the method proposed will deal with it effectively.

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

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

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

economically justifiable?

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

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

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

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

stocking eventually ends, perhaps even cannot persist.

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

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

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

hatcheries?

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

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

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

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

Phalon Lake broodstock(s)?

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

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

if the fish were produced in a hatchery, then they couldn’t have been wild. Hatcheryreared fish from a native strain or words to that effect would be more accurate.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

70

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

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

abstract.

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

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

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

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

tributary?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

et al. (1996).

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

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

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

Kettle River native redband population which is severely diminished because WDFW

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

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

(as it appeared to be during our bus tour, and we weren’t told otherwise), then the natural

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

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

the possibilities should be considered that stocking will stimulate continued excessive

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

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

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

latter process.

References:

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

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

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

of the reproductive behavior and success of farmed and wild Atlantic salmon. Journal of
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

71

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

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

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

salmon on naturally produced chinook salmon. Idaho Supplementation Studies Annual

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

possible that a hatchery supplementation program may inadvertently replace the target

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

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

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

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

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

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

propagation.”)

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

University of Washington Press, Seattle.

CBFWA Comments from DAIWP: Managers from agencies and tribes throughout the

province identified this project proposal as essential for continued progress towards

replacing non-native hatchery rainbow trout strains currently used in numerous hatchery

programs in this province with native populations. Other CBFWA reviewer comments on

the original proposal: Technical criterion 1 was technically deficient. Current objectives

and task section consists of objectives and tasks that lack focus. At times, the stated

objectives are actually tasks. Sponsors should restructure the objectives and tasks so that

they are clearly defined. Could be stocking redband in areas that support redband

populations that are not genetically similar.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

72

ISRP Conditional Fundable Recommendation - CBFWA High

Priority or Recommended Action

ProjectID: 199502700

Develop and Implement Recovery Plan for Depressed Lake Roosevelt White Sturgeon

Populations.

Sponsor: STOI

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt

Short Description: Current population of a few hundred mature fish are unable to recruit

YOY into reservoir. Recruitment is limited by hydropower development, and possible

predation of eggs and larvae, and pollution. Investigate limitations and develop mitigative

actions.

Sponsor Request FY01: $152,000

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $537,000

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable, the response adequately addressed the ISRP’s concerns, but design of an

adequate monitoring and evaluation procedure should be required during the Council’s

review or BPA’s contracting process. The initial ISRP review concluded that the plan for

monitoring and evaluation was not clear. Although somewhat agreeing with ISRP

comments suggesting the need for better planning before fieldwork begins, the authors

make the case for getting egg/larvae sampling started quickly. They feel that this much

fieldwork must be done soon, regardless of whether they have a better formulated

research plan or not. They also state that having data from the egg/larval sampling will

allow them to develop a better long-range research plan. The new information provided

in the response reassured the Panel that there probably is a viable sturgeon population in

the upper Lake Roosevelt system (presumably at the upper extent of the flow line of Lake

Roosevelt). The Panel agreed that some immediate fieldwork as outlined in the response

is appropriate, rather than waiting for completion of the study plan proper.

Regarding the ISRP’s comment about the staff’s ability to do so much work, the authors

state that much would be subcontracted and that temporary staff are available from the

co-managers. The sponsors intend to have the contractor develop the study and research

plan, including the statistical experimental design with respect to measuring abundance

and distribution of invertebrate and vertebrate forage species that are the food of

sturgeon. With no description of the study and research plan, the ISRP is still left with

little to review for its scientific merits on that subject. A better procedure would be for

the contractor to be involved in preparation of the proposal. In this way, there would be

assurance that an appropriate sampling design would be included in the project planning,

and a full description of the monitoring and evaluation plan would be included in the

proposal for evaluation by the ISRP.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

73

The sponsors plan close coordination with other sturgeon studies. It appears that they will

have one of the contractors already working with sturgeon do this study. What they

propose to do is very similar to what the ISRP team saw Vaughn Paragamian doing on

the Kootenai River. We concur with this approach, which has been fruitful.

The sponsors make the point that it seems unrealistic to expect completion of their project

(a Recovery Plan) within 3 years. However, it should be possible to identify time periods

required to accomplish some of the tasks. Specifically it should now be possible to

develop a reasonable estimate of the time required to develop a full study plan – with the

understanding that modifications will be made as experience is gained. Similarly, the

time required for data collection ought to be estimated, accompanied by a time for

assessment. It will then become clear that it would not be reasonable to expect

development of a full recovery plan within three years, given the lack of data on certain

critical points. However, it should be possible to make some kind of estimate of the total

time required.

All-in-all, the proposers answered the ISRP’s questions satisfactorily. The result seems

to be a more rigorous approach. Design of an adequate monitoring and evaluation

procedure should be required during the Council’s review and the BPA contracting

period.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

Overall Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

funding was initiated in August 2000.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and to other white sturgeon work in the Basin. The objectives and tasks are clear, and
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

74

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

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

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

were met.

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

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

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

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

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

formulating a biologically sound restoration program. This project proposes to obtain the

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

recovery and not strictly enhancement of a native species.

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

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

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

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

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

(active program).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

stated that density and distribution of major food items will be plotted as an individual

GIS layer on a bathymetric map of Lake Roosevelt. Are we to assume then that densities
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

75

of fish species that constitute the diet of larger sturgeon will be included? To accomplish

this task will require a well-designed, statistically valid sampling survey. There is no

description of such a survey. Abundance of food is very likely to prove to be a limiting

factor to sturgeon populations, while distribution of food will be of secondary importance

(sturgeon may move to abundant food supplies). Factors involved in limiting abundance

are described in the Lake Roosevelt Subbasin Summary.

We recommend consideration of a three-part sequence for a three-year project. A revised

proposal for the response review might simply provide more details on study methods.

Alternatively, the revision could indicate that priority attention would be given to

additional assessment (based on available knowledge in this subbasin and elsewhere, and

from research conducted with the initial funding) and further development of a detailed

research program to guide a recovery plan. Over the three-year duration of the project,

more assessment could be accomplished, plans for the research could be further refined

and be given detailed peer review by colleagues knowledgeable about sturgeon biology,

and then field studies beyond those already part of the project and the Lake Roosevelt

monitoring program could be conducted (probably in the second year). The recovery

plan could be drafted at the end of the research period, depending on results. It is likely,

however, that more than 3 years of study effort will be required. A response should

demonstrate examples of more detailed study plans.

ProjectID: 21018

Implement Fisheries Enhancement on the Coeur d'Alene Indian Reservation: Hangman

Creek

Sponsor: Cd'A

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: Spokane

Short Description: Determine the current distribution and enhancement opportunities for

redband trout in Hangman Creek and its tributaries within the Coeur d'Alene Reservation.

Sponsor Request FY01: $179,482

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $775,061

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, if project addresses ISRP

concerns in Council review or BPA contracting process.

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable, the response provided information that clarified some of the ISRP’s concerns

in the original proposal. The habitat restoration activities are supportable. The response

did provide evidence that some redband trout previously have been found in upper

Hangman Creek, although it still appears that much of the effort on this project would be

directed to stream rehabilitation well downstream from the areas currently occupied by

redband trout.

The response provided several pages of proposed M&E details for everything from

macroinvertebrates to channel classification, but little on fish population methodology

except the use of the depletion method. In the BPA contracting process, the contract

officer should ensure that methods are adequately described and provisions are made for
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

76

data storage and retrieval. Regarding the ISRP emphasis on peer-review: the investigators

should understand that peer review is not only for the benefit of maintaining quality, but

also provides a significant benefit by getting information about project methods and

results out to a larger audience. This will benefit other investigators as well as project

investigators.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

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

should be able to satisfy ISRP concerns in the response review. They made a good case

on improving riparian health and wildlife benefits, but were weak on the fish population

assessment component. The interaction with proposal 21017 is commendable for

simultaneous improvement of riparian habitat for wildlife and instream conditions for

fish. The two projects offer an exciting opportunity through a fortuitous set of land

ownership circumstances that can lead to major land and habitat reform within the middle

and upper Hangman Creek watershed.

Fish assessment methods were not adequately presented. The proposal needs additional

detail in its methods (including documentation) and M&E. The project staff should

ensure that they are familiar with fisheries methodologies and the relevant literature

beyond the immediate intermountain province. For example, backpack electroshocker is

listed as fish sampling gear. This probably means the current used will be pulsed DC.

The potential for high rates of fish injury and death from pulsed DC should be addressed,

and the advantages of using far less destructive unpulsed DC (non-backpack units) should

be considered. No basic, refereed literature on stream ecology and fish habitat was

referenced. If basic stream ecology and stream fish requirements are not followed, then

the project is not likely to pay off.

Similarly, data on the upper reaches needs to be included in the response. Specifically,

the watershed apparently was surveyed for westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout in

1998-99 – and weren't at least preliminary data gathered on redband trout? To what

portions of the subbasin are redband trout likely to be restored, and are those the portions

of the subbasin where riparian and instream improvements are planned?

Long term planning for this proposal should include and emphasize peer-reviewed

publication of the results, as this is a novel and exciting approach.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

77

ISRP and CBFWA Agree: ISRP Fundable and CBFWA High

Priority

ProjectID: 21017

Implement Wildlife Habitat Protection and Restoration on the Coeur d'Alene Indian

Reservation: Hangman Watershed.

Sponsor: Cd'A

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: Spokane

Short Description: Protect and/or restore riparian, wetland and priority upland wildlife

habitats within the Hangman Watershed on the Coeur d'Alene Indian Reservation as part

of implementation efforts in the Spokane River Subbasin.

Sponsor Request FY01: $158,252

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $3,738,752

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable. The proposal is adequate as amended. This is an excellent project. However,

plans for electronic storage of data and metadata and for release of data collected with

public funds provided by BPA should be finalized with BPA before monies are made

available. Better coordination with other wildlife monitoring efforts in the Province

should be worked out during the Council’s review or BPA contracting process.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. This is a wellprepared, highly persuasive proposal that deserves funding; however, additional detail is

needed on monitoring and evaluation methods.

Overall evaluation.

This proposal offers an exciting opportunity through a fortuitous set of land ownership

circumstances that will lead to major land and habitat reform within the upper Hangman

Creek watershed. The interaction with proposal 21018 is commendable for simultaneous

improvement of riparian habitat for wildlife and instream conditions for fish. The

monitoring and evaluation section does not have sufficient detail.

Specific comments and questions.

1. Long term planning for this proposal should include and emphasize peer-reviewed

publication of the results, as this is a novel and exciting approach.

2. Limiting factors are explicitly addressed. Objectives are specific and the establishment

of a trust fund for flexibility in securing management rights is a good idea.

3. The proposal should contain designs and protocols with references for data collection

in the monitoring and evaluation section. Plans should be included for electronic storage

of data and metadata. Comparable methods are needed for monitoring and evaluation of
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

78

projects in the Inter Mountain Province and to evaluate progress toward meeting

objectives of the subbasin summaries.

ProjectID: 21034

Colville Tribes Restore Habitat for Sharp-tailed Grouse

Sponsor: CCT-FWD

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt, Lake Rufus Woods, San Poil

Short Description: Conduct a population viability analysis for a comprehensive,

adaptive management plan to restore critical shrub-steppe and riparian deciduous habitat

to secure a viable metapopulation of sharp-tailed grouse on the Intermountain Province

region.

Sponsor Request FY01: $169,400

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $508,200

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable. The response resolved the initial concerns of the ISRP. There are still

questions about what exactly will be done in some areas, but that is to be expected at this

stage of the project. The general approach is good, the response is thorough, and the

expanded project team has the collective expertise to make this project work. This is an

important project that should be done now.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

addendum.

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

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

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

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

and analytical methods are described in general terms, but without specific information

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

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

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

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

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

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

be that this project needs more funding for analysis, including the development of a
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

79

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

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

population models as an advisor or subcontractor.

ProjectID: 198503800

Colville Tribal Fish Hatchery

Sponsor: CCT

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt, Lake Rufus Woods

Short Description: Produce 22,679 kg (50,000 lbs ) of resident salmonids for

distribution to reservation waters in an effort to provide a successful subsistence/

recreational fishery as partial mitigation for anadromous fish losses above Chief Joseph

and Grand Coulee Dams.

Sponsor Request FY01: $789,642

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $2,489,346

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable, this very good proposal reflects considerable effort and responds to past ISRP

comments on the need for native stocks and M&E. Hatchery production is now less than

half the budget. They need better records of return of creel to justify the economics. The

project could use a review by economists to potentially improve the economic return.

The broad picture of relationships among the basin’s hatcheries, net pens and reservoir

fish is not very clear.

The Colville Tribal Hatchery successfully produces resident salmonids to mitigate for

anadromous fish losses from Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph dams by stocking

reservation lakes and streams. The technical and scientific background for the mitigation

is clearly defined. The scientific rationale for stocking coastal rainbow trout, eastern

brook trout, and some Lahontan cutthroat trout is clearly defined as largely a put-growand-take fishery for tribal members and some non-members. It is active management for

a consumptive fishery using non-natives where they fit the habitat. The project has

responded well to previous ISRP reviews and has oriented less to production and more to

native stocks, evaluation of ecosystems before planting, and compliance with the

Council’s artificial production guidelines. It reflects both conscientious hatchery

production and a change in scope to hatchery/wild comparisons and native salmonids

consistent with past ISRP reviews. The presentation of data was appreciated. There is an

excellent reference list (despite some editorial glitches) and informative resumes.

However, limnological data suggest poor summer conditions for salmonids in some

lakes, which may limit successful stocking. We anticipate further adaptation of the

program to match species stocked to the habitats of the lakes as these results are

integrated.

This is largely a stand-alone project, but reflects interactions. It seems well developed

and coordinated with the subbasin scheme. The proposal provided a good project history

and relevant data. There are clearly defined and measurable objectives that relate directly
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

80

to the fisheries of the stocked waters. Methods are appropriate and well described. The

project includes good monitoring and consistent evaluation. However, the HGMP looks

incomplete. Monitoring ensures that the lakes are not overstocked, that the hatchery

produces what people want to catch, and that the lakes and streams are appropriate for the

fish species (but see above). Facilities seem adequate for the work. Information seems

adequately transferred. Within the objective of perpetually providing consumptive

fisheries that match the people’s desires and the available aquatic systems, there is a

persistent benefit to fisheries. There seem to be no adverse effects on other species. The

project meets all consistency criteria.

The proposal enlarges upon the objective to specify a catch per unit of effort to be

achieved in the fishery created by the fish that are planted. Further thought needs to be

given to specification of this objective. It needs to be recognized that the catch per effort

experienced in any fishery is a function of both the number of fish in the population and

the total number of fishermen participating in the fishery (in this context or total effort in

a general context). There is no suggestion in the proposal or elsewhere that the number of

fishermen might be restricted in some way. It appears to be assumed that it will remain

constant. However, it is well established that fishermen will regulate their effort to the

expected catch per effort. Therefore, the fishery resulting from these planted fish will

probably reach an equilibrium with a catch per effort value that satisfies the fishermen

rather than one that satisfies the hatchery manager or planner. The end result might be

that the planner is continually under pressure to provide more fish as the fishing effort

mounts. The text should at least discuss this issue.

Economics warrants further evaluation by others beyond the ISRP (IEAB (Independent

Economic Advisory Board)?). The budget doubled over forecast due to prior ISRP

review such that the M&E budget is now greater that the O&M budget. By our

calculations, $395,000/yr is spent for 49,000 fish stocked, = $8/lb. One might question

whether this is good value and whether examination of some of the details of the project

could make the return more beneficial economically.

ProjectID: 199104600

Spokane Tribal Hatchery (Galbraith Springs) Operation and Maintenance

Sponsor: STOI

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt

Short Description: Operate and maintain the Spokane Tribal Hatchery to aid in the

restoration and enhancement of the Lake Roosevelt and Banks Lake fisheries.

Sponsor Request FY01: $549,856

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $1,735,856

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable. This is a well-written proposal in nearly every respect. It mentions an

important Lake Roosevelt Hatcheries/Fisheries Coordination Team, which was not
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

81

emphasized in the subbasin summary or the verbal presentations. Background was

excellent, and the map was much appreciated. The rationale is excellent. The

collaborative aspect with other projects is well presented. Information transfer is

specially noted. Objectives are more like tasks, but ok. The project is important for fish.

It meets the consistency criteria.

This proposal provides a useful umbrella-like summary of the Lake Roosevelt Subbasin

goals and objectives and how each of eight projects fits into the big picture, (a) Galbraith

Springs (this proposal), the Sherman Creek Hatchery, and net pen rearing of fish in Lake

Roosevelt, (b) Lake Roosevelt Evaluation, (c) Lake Roosevelt Habitat and passage

improvement, (d) Chief Joseph Enhancement Project, (e) Phalon Lake Wild Rainbow, (f)

Ford Hatchery, (g) Banks Lake Monitoring and Evaluation, and (h) Resident Fish Stock

Status Above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee Dams.

The project needs to integrate results from M&E project to evaluate its own success (as

previously implied in the last one of the FY00 ISRP comments). The project seems to

depend too much on M&E from the LRFEP; it should get data from LRFEP, apply it in

adaptive management, and show how it is doing this. A summary of results, from an

annual report, ought to be part of the proposal. Scientific soundness depends on the data

produced. Cost-effectiveness of hatchery operation should be assessed via data on rate of

return to the creel.

Some statements would be improved if supported by references, e.g., on p. 6, last

paragraph last sentence: “This technique is used in British Columbia where naturally

producing kokanee are supplements with artificial production.” Where can we read about

that—and its results? Same problem at end of first paragraph on p. 8.

In kokanee and rainbow trout HGMPs’ sections 2.3, the claim is made that “Lake

Roosevelt fisheries specifically benefits [sic] from this program by increased harvest and

alleviation of fishing pressure on limited naturally producing populations” (emphasis

added). Are there data to substantiate such “alleviation”? Might not the opposite be

occurring via the effect that stocking can have in stimulating overharvest of less

numerous natural stocks in mixed-stock situations?

Should kokanee HGMP section 2.5 cover the interactions of stocked kokanee with

naturally-reproducing kokanee?

Rainbow trout HGMP section 2.4, paragraph 8 pertains only to kokanee, therefore does

not belong in this HGMP. The paragraph is identical to one in the kokanee HGMP.

Indeed, the whole section 2.4 are the same in both HGMPs—as are some other sections

and paragraphs. Much of the boilerplating is probably unwarranted.

Question: Has the staff contemplated whether the hatchery will be needed forever,

especially if the entrainment deterrent system works at the dam?
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

82

Question: Is it mostly shoreline spawning of kokanee that is affected by drawdowns or

are the tributaries also affected? (see bottom of p. 3).

ProjectID: 199404300

Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation Program

Sponsor: STOI

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt, Lake Rufus Woods

Short Description: Monitor and evaluate the performance of hatchery fish. Develop and

maintain a model able to predict the effects of hydro-operations and management actions

on the lake ecosystem and fishery. Use model results to refine a fisheries management

plans.

Sponsor Request FY01: $1,113,584

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $3,112,168

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable, the response was adequate. The ISRP’s greatest concern with this project

proposal (and presentation) was the lack of documented results from 12 years of work.

The sponsors took the ISRP comments seriously and applied considerable effort on their

response. The new material significantly clarified results of the project to date and

reinforced the feeling that a system like Lake Roosevelt is probably one of the hardest

aquatic systems in the world to manage. The Panel was adequately convinced that

reasonable pieces of work have been completed (an impression, which we did not get

from the proposal). The authors provided data, along with good summaries. As the

reviewers suspected, the project had data and other information available with which it

could have better documented progress in the original proposal.

However, the Panel remains concerned that the project does not seem to focus on

monitoring specific effects from other projects (other projects list this project as the M&E

for their work), but rather just conduct a general fish population monitoring in the

reservoir. For example, reviewers raised the question of seeking effects on fish

populations from reduced entrainment through the dam (a big effort by another project).

Their response was that they didn't do monitoring for specific project effects, only

general fish sampling from which one might see effects over several years. We do not

find this answer satisfying when a more explicit study design and more focussed

sampling could better establish the effects (if any) of other projects and lead to better

adaptive management.

Also, reviewers’ recommendation for having a consultant was misinterpreted as obtaining

consultants to do the work, when the Panel really meant having a senior advisor available

to them for guidance, research planning and analysis of results. It is clear that project

personnel do not have a clear concept for how to proceed with the overall project and

could use such seasoned advice. Such a senior advisor could be of value to the STOI for

selecting and evaluating the hired consultants. However, the sponsors accepted the

Panel’s request for a statistical consultant.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

83

One important item was not clear to the Panel until reading this response. The issue is

kokanee stocking. The Panel asked several times during the tour how hatchery kokanee

were contributing to the fishery. We got the feeling that they were performing poorly but

to an unknown extent. However, it is evident from the response that kokanee released as

fry showed virtually no return to the creel. Moreover, more recent stockings of larger

kokanee performed even worse in Lake Roosevelt. Therefore, besides providing some

possible benefit downstream of Lake Roosevelt, this expensive hatchery and netpen

rearing operation may be simply feeding walleyes. The Panel believes this likely is a

major problem and the author of the response appears to feel likewise, but in a low

profile manner. Had reviewers been afforded a better understanding of this problem

during the tour and presentations, they would have had a different perspective when

reviewing the kokanee hatchery projects and could have initiated discussion of the issue

in relation to hatchery and netpen operations. This project should demonstrate a clear

focus on providing information to other projects such that their future program

modifications will be likely to solve this problem (i.e., modifying netpen release patterns

of kokanee to obtain some sort of dispersal, elimination of netpen operations, etc.). Allin-all, the Panel believes that this project can be funded.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable only if a response is provided that shows the results of past efforts and

addresses the other ISRP concerns described below. The proposal is not scientifically

sound without description of past efforts and their success or failure. What have the

project leaders learned? They should show analyzed data in the project history section of

the proposal to document their progress and competence. The ISRP has commented on

the lack of data in the past and again data presentation was lacking in this proposal and

the presentation. If the PIs cannot show and synthesize the results, a different contractor

should do the evaluation. The project needs consultation and oversight. The PIs do make

recommendations for management actions, but the basis of the their recommendations

need to be better substantiated. A senior biometrician should supervise data collection

design and data analysis. The project has gathered data for 12 years so they should at

least be able to show stock status. Results from this project should be integrated with the

other projects to be useful. Too much emphasis on models takes away from producing

descriptive data analyses intermediate in the process, yet these data are critical to

operation of the many projects for which monitoring and evaluation data are provided.

This project conducts the overall monitoring and evaluation of Lake Roosevelt

limnology, aquatic ecosystem, fish, and fisheries, which is used as a basis for measuring

success of several other projects, especially hatcheries. It is a core project of the subbasin

with high regional significance.

The technical and scientific background is adequate but could benefit from more explicit

use of the scientific literature on reservoirs as unique aquatic environments. Although the

PI said in oral presentation that there is little conceptual literature on reservoirs, there

actually is quite a lot (for example papers by Kimmell, Thornton and others, and

management experiences with other storage reservoirs with deep drawdowns such as in
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

84

the TVA system, as well as many papers in the journal Regulated Rivers). The project

could benefit from additional outside assistance from reservoir managers who have dealt

with large reservoirs with deep drawdowns. Synthesis of information through use of a

model for reservoir hydraulics and water quality is a good idea as a conceptual

foundation, but its use could be improved with outside consultation. A description of the

model would have been helpful. The relationship to other projects is clear, but might

have been described in more detail. The project history is informative but lacks specific

project results (as requested last year by the ISRP). The project has developed over the

years, embodies a comprehensive and appropriately basic approach, and has resulted in

improved management. The project personnel obviously continue to work toward

improving the work plan. The objectives are clear, and the tasks and methods are

appropriate and related to objectives (a problem noted last year). We appreciate the

difficulty of focusing on specific tasks in a system so large and hydraulically complex.

The objective of affecting hydro operations because of fishery objectives in the reservoir

is probably unrealistic when taken in a regional perspective. Lower river managers

expect Lake Roosevelt to provide water when needed. The project would be more

realistically scoped in the context of managing fisheries in an unstable and non-natural

environment. Having more modest expectations for the usefulness of the model for

obtaining specific results is essential, although the model is a useful conceptual guide and

synthesis tool. The establishment of an ecosystem model for Lake Roosevelt is a laudable

goal, but will it be able to capture the unique features of this system and truly be useful as

a fisheries management tool?

Facilities and personnel are adequately described but may not be adequate for the goal of

managing fisheries in such a large and complex system. Collaborative use of personnel

from other projects is important for mounting large field operations. Additional use of

outside consultants, including a senior biometrician, could bolster the professional

capabilities.

The project is represented as adequately transferring its information to other projects for

their M&E needs, but no data were presented in the proposal and little data appeared in

the other proposals to illustrate or substantiate this. The project should have a large and

important benefit for fish and fisheries of Lake Roosevelt. There are likely benefits to

non-target species and habitats from increasing general understanding of the system. All

consistency criteria are met.

The proposal is informative but contains parts that lead to concern. One example: on

narrative p. 6, paragraph 2, is it really meant that “all kokanee with an adipose fin clip”

(i.e., those from the hatchery) are to be excluded from harvest, or should it be that all

unclipped kokanee are to be excluded from harvest?

The project has budgeted $40K per year for "writing studies for the public in professional

journals.” We applaud publication, but wonder if the expectation of $40k/year worth is a

realistic target. There is no publication yet from the project but one has been submitted.

A major concern is that the project is behind schedule for both modeling and data
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

85

collection (p11) but there is no indication of how extra money will allow catch-up. Both

the proposal and the oral presentations caused us to wonder if staff is adequate to handle

the statistical analysis and modeling aspects of the project. Outside consultation by a

senior statistician and a trained modeler could be helpful.

Another project is proposing evaluation of strobe lights as an entrainment deterrent at

Grand Coulee Dam. There was no mention of whether this monitoring project is gearing

up to be able to detect differences in kokanee population dynamics in the reservoir when

(if?) strobe lights are successful at reducing entrainment. If that technology works, it

could mean a big change in the way several hatchery and net pen projects are operated.

Monitoring the reservoir for effects of reduced entrainment should be a major objective

of this project.

ProjectID: 199104700

Sherman Creek Hatchery Operations and Maintenance

Sponsor: WDFW

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt

Short Description: Operate and maintain Sherman Creek Hatchery (SCH) and the Lake

Roosevelt Kokanee Net Pens to aid in the restoration and enhancement of the Lake

Roosevelt and Banks Lake Fisheries. SCH is a key component of the Lake Roosevelt

Fishery Enhancement Project.

Sponsor Request FY01: $269,898

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $802,864

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable. The move toward using native stocks is commendable and should continue.

This project is well integrated with the other Lake Roosevelt Hatchery projects. They

should present results from the M&E project, 199404300, to support their own operation.

The three HGMPs are thorough but perhaps are inappropriately boilerplated in parts.

Section 2.3.1 of all the HGMPs alludes to the idea of “alleviation of fishing pressure in

limited naturally reproducing populations.” Is this fact or myth? References to studies

supporting (and/or failing to support and/or refuting) this idea should be cited.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

86

ProjectID: 199500900

Rainbow Trout Net Pen Rearing Project

Sponsor: LRDA

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt

Short Description: Operate and maintain the net pen program to aid in the enhancement

and restoration of the Lake Roosevelt fisheries.

Sponsor Request FY01: $100,550

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $328,328

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable. Good use of volunteers. This very effective project operates and maintains net

pens at several locations throughout Lake Roosevelt to provide final rearing for the

output of several province hatcheries. Fish are released to the lake to support recreational

fisheries. The project is conducted largely by volunteers with BPA financial support for

coordination and maintenance of facilities. There appears to be excellent organization and

enthusiasm. It is a highly visible and popular program.

There is a clearly identified problem in sustaining a reservoir fishery in the face of large

amount of entrainment of fish through Grand Coulee Dam and lack of spawning habitat.

The rationale and significance are well described. There are good relationships with

other projects. In fact, the net pens are integral (and final) to the interlocking sequence of

fish movements between adult capture, hatching, rearing, and release that involve other

multiple facilities and a planning committee (the oral presentation of this project did the

best job of explaining the whole sequence). The history is well described. Objectives are

clearly explained in relation to fishery benefits. Methods are clear. Monitoring and

evaluation are well formulated and handled by the Lake Roosevelt Fisheries Evaluation

Program. Facilities are appropriate. The volunteer efforts are laudable. The proposers do

an excellent job of providing information to the public, which is essential to maintaining

a volunteer work force. There is clear benefit to fish, judged in terms of human use

through fisheries. The project meets all consistency criteria.

Some details of the proposal raised comment by the reviewers. Section c (Rationale and

Significance) contains unsupported statements in 2nd paragraph of p. 5 concerning (lack

of effect on?) genetic integrity of native rainbow trout and, as in other projects of this

province, the idea that stocking hatchery fish “tends to reduce harvest of native stocks

thereby helping to enhance their recovery.” These points are relevant on a broader basis

than just this one project, and warrant further evaluation on a subbasin basis. On the

positive side, reviewers were pleased to see some mention of a goal for angler harvest:

500,000 fish released for 190,000 fish in creel, (p5) overall 35-57% harvest. This is not

great, but probably in an acceptable range. The claim is that "survivors spawn along

shoreline in autumn, not in tributaries with native rainbows in spring” should be

substantiated somewhere. The possible issue of dilution of native rainbow stocks

because of successful spawning by netpen survivors is of concern here.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

87

ProjectID: 21021

Ford Hatchery Improvement, Operation And Maintenance

Sponsor: WDFW

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt

Short Description: Improve water supply and operate and maintain Ford Hatchery to

enhance the recreational and subsistence kokanee fisheries in Lake Roosevelt and Banks

Lake, and bolster put-and-take resident trout fishing lakes in Region 1 (Eastern WA).

Sponsor Request FY01: $213,249

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $768,463

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable. This is a straight-forward proposal for upgrading a deteriorated water supply

system in a hatchery that provides fish for Lake Roosevelt and Banks Lake stocking

programs (and a few others). The state has agreed to pay for a new building that was

once part of the proposal. The proposal also includes M&E for Banks Lake and other

minor lakes to assess success of the "plantings" (which seems oddly placed in this

proposal, although important).

There is well-written, informative background material. However, it is not clear that

added hatchery capacity is needed considering all the other hatchery facilities in the

subbasin, although the oral presentations indicated that there really is a need for more

hatchery rearing space. The relationship of this project to others in Lake Roosevelt is

described in the Spokane Tribal Hatchery (Galbraith Springs) Operation and Maintenance

Project 199104600. There still seems to be a need for prioritization among the several

hatcheries, but that goes beyond the ISRP role. There appears to be good benefit to fish

from stocking. Consistency criteria are met.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

88

ProjectID: 199106200

Spokane Tribe of Indians Wildlife Mitigation Project

Sponsor: STOI

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt

Short Description: Mitigation and protection of lands purchased for partial mitigation on

the Spokane Indian Reservation due to the construction and inundation of winter range

habitat caused by Grand Coulee Dam.

Sponsor Request FY01: $1,528,806

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $4,787,306

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable. The proposal is adequate as amended.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable only if the response includes more detail concerning methods for identification

of limiting factors to and for population-indexing (monitoring) of target species.

Specific comments and questions.

1. The proposal is well written with attention to detail and ranking of lands that might be

purchased.

2. This is reported to be an ongoing project, but a project by this name and number was

not reviewed in the ISRP July 15, 1999, report. If this project is the same as the 1999

proposed project 20081, STOI Wildlife Land Acquisition And Enhancements, then

significant progress has been made in the quality of the proposal.

3. The proposal should contain designs and protocols with references for data collection

in the monitoring and evaluation section. Plans should be included for electronic storage

of data and metadata. Comparable methods are needed for monitoring and evaluation of

this and the other projects in the Inter-Mountain Province and to evaluate progress toward

meeting objectives of the sub-basin summaries.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

89

ProjectID: 199204800

Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range Operation And Maintenance Project

Sponsor: CCT-FWD

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt, Lake Rufus Woods

Short Description: Protect, enhance, manage and evaluate wildlife habitats and species

for partial mitigation for losses to wildlife resulting from Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph

Dams.

Sponsor Request FY01: $388,071

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $1,263,471

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable. The proposal addressed the ISRP’s past concerns. The presentations and site

visits further substantiated the value of the project. This appears to be a well-managed

and effective program.

ProjectID: 199506700

Colville Tribes Performance Contract for Continuing Acquisition

Sponsor: CCT-FWD

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt

Short Description: Acquire, protect, enhance and evaluate wildlife habitat and species

for partial mitigation for losses to wildlife resulting from Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph

Dams.

Sponsor Request FY01: $1,500,000

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $4,500,000

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable. The proposal addressed the ISRP’s past concerns. The presentations and site

visits further substantiated the value of the project. This appears to be a well-managed

and effective program.

The proposal is to acquire an additional 2,000 to 4,000 acres of land (or management

rights thereto) for habitat mitigation. Criteria to be used for acquisition of particular lands

are specified and the site visit verified past effectiveness of purchases in addressing fish

and wildlife mitigation goals. The panel noted a need for this project to be able to have

more money readily available so that high priority properties can be purchased when they

become available. Perhaps a different arrangement with BPA could be arranged for

wildlife mitigation purchases for projects such as this that have established a sound

scientific approach. See the general ISRP comments on “Trust Funds for Habitat and

Water Right Acquisition.”
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

90

ProjectID: 199800300

Spokane Tribe of Indians Wildlife Operations and Maintenance

Sponsor: STOI

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt

Short Description: Partial mitigation to protect, mitigate, and enhance wildlife

mitigation lands on the Spokane Indian Reservation for construction and inundation

losses of wildlife habitat on the Spokane Indian Reservation caused by Grand Coulee

Dams,.

Sponsor Request FY01: $182,497

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $558,974

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable. The proposal is adequate as amended.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable only if the response provides adequate detail concerning the methods for

enhancement and monitoring of target species. The concerns with the proposal were

mostly addressed at the presentation and should be elaborated on in a written response.

Comments and specific questions.

1. The proposal is improved from past versions, however additional details are needed on

enhancement and monitoring methods for target species. For example, what are the

methods for “...more intensive vegetation monitoring ...”, including criteria for location

of sites for noxious weed control.

2. It is not acceptable to include tasks of, for example, “This year we will determine how

many plots are needed and protocol on collecting information ...” Proposals should

contain designs and protocols with references for data collection in the monitoring and

evaluation section. Plans should be included for electronic storage of data and metadata.

Comparable methods are needed for monitoring and evaluation of this and other projects

in the Inter Mountain Province and to evaluate progress toward meeting objectives of the

subbasin summaries. The site-specific management plan that is stated as having been

submitted to Bonneville might be provided to facilitate review of methods and sampling

designs.

3. Explain why it is possible to have too much bitterbrush on deer winter range. Are

these old desiccate stands? What are the criteria for planting the different grass species,

e.g., crested wheatgrass? Crested wheatgrass has frequently been used to quickly stabilize

soils, but has proven to be poor habitat for wildlife. Explain other apparently

contradictory management practices such as burning to reduce shrubs versus active fire

suppression and planting to increase them, and planting crested wheatgrass versus

actively removing non-native species. This does not sound like working with natural

habitat potential.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

91

ProjectID: 21008

Evaluation of the Banks Lake Fishery

Sponsor: WDFW

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: Lake Roosevelt

Short Description: Determine the abundance and ecological interactions of fish

populations in Banks Lake. Identify limiting factors for naturally recruiting and hatchery

supplemented fish. Provide management recommendations to maximize the fishing

potential of Banks Lake.

Sponsor Request FY01: $170,408

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $857,908

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable. This is a very thorough proposal (indeed outstanding) that describes a gigantic,

expensive project, which, however, looks worthwhile in terms of yielding much benefit.

It seems to cover most of the bases needed for a great start, but we have a few

misgivings, mentioned below. The proposal is strong on technical background, bringing

basic literature to bear, and on relevance to the FWP and the subbasin plan. It has

problems, though, in connecting the tasks and methods to critical tests of the hypotheses.

The material is well written; few terms and thoughts need further explaining.

The emphasis of this project is to develop Banks Lake as major kokanee fishery. This

may not be possible in the face of warm summer temperatures, drawdown, and

entrainment. It would be better to make that assessment quickly rather than to futilely

increase future stocking of kokanee.

The role of walleye is unclear. It is ignored for the most part in the proposal objectives,

yet walleye have been stocked since 1992. The proposal contains vague words about

increasing burbot. It lacks further discussion about attempts to understand limiting factors

and management options. The creel census that is described for the Ford Hatchery

project (21021) might be more appropriate for this project. The personnel are well

qualified for the task.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

92

ProjectID: 199501100

Chief Joseph Kokanee Enhancement Project

Sponsor: CCT

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: San Poil, Lake Rufus Woods

Short Description: Determine natural production kokanee status using adult recruitment,

genetic stock mapping and entrainment at Grand Coulee Dam as indicators. Enhance

kokanee and rainbow trout populations by augmentation and entrainment prevention.

Sponsor Request FY01: $1,145,762

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $3,987,762

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable. It was evident that the project has been significantly re-energized over the

preceding year, dropping two objectives and focusing on assessing and ultimately

reducing kokanee entrainment. Results presented from the year 2000 study of fish

distribution and water velocity adjacent to the third powerplant were exciting and

provided compelling evidence of recent progress toward those goals.

The proposal for ongoing work clearly outlined efforts to monitor kokanee abundance

and collect genetic sample material at a number of sites, to contract analysis that will

hopefully complete characterization of the stocks present, and to contract evaluation of a

prototype strobe light system. These tasks seem well organized and staffed by personnel

likely to produce quality scientific results.

The ISRP is gratified that this important project has demonstrated its previous results and

embarked on a rigorous research program directed at a principle problem of Lake

Roosevelt that affects many other BPA-funded projects. The turn-around from last year’s

review is to be commended.

ProjectID: 199001800

Evaluate Rainbow Trout/Habitat Improvements Of Tributaries To Lake Roosevelt

Sponsor: CCT

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: San Poil

Short Description: Increase the quality and quantity of spawning and rearing habitat in

selected streams that drain into Lake Roosevelt by eliminating migration barriers,

improving riparian conditions, and improving instream habitat.

Sponsor Request FY01: $199,019

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $826,019

CBFWA Recommendation: Urgent/High Priority

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Fundable

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable; the responses are adequate in general, although the data provided in the

response still did not enable the reviewers to clearly evaluate past results of the project.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

93

ISRP feels it is essential that project staff secure the services of a senior level scientist

with expertise in data acquisition and interpretation.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable only if the response adequately addresses the ISRP concerns. Proposers have

focused on evaluating fish barriers because they have shown that strategy works. The

proposal to continue to evaluate and improve fish passage seems appropriate. However,

there is risk if remnant populations of bull, redband or cutthroat trout exist above a barrier

and would be impacted by introgression or competition if the barrier were removed.

Protocol for assessing and protecting any remnant populations should be added to the

proposal.

The proposal focuses on Bridge Creek, where a fish passage problem clearly exists.

Plans to evaluate, monitor, and recreate the original stream channel seemed well thought

through. But what about after Bridge Creek? Are there similar problem sites elsewhere?

A three-year plan, or description of how such a plan will be developed, should be

presented.

The figures provided to convey data in the proposal and presentation were inadequate to

allow reviewers to understand past results. Those figures should be re-done with more

appropriate axes and labels. Also, the scientific background material contains only gray

literature. It should include also substantial reference to basic material on stream ecology

and fish habitat.

Figure 2 on p. 10 shows “Fish Density.” Does this pertain to juveniles or adults?

Paragraph 2 on p. 10 begins: “Habitat improvements such as drop structures and meander

construction were selected as the method to extend flow duration [emphasis added]. . .”

What does this mean?

Same paragraph: a “strategy” is mentioned in the last sentence. What strategy?

P. 13, near end of paragraph 2: “The exclosure was less than effective in reducing

livestock damage to the plants stocked.” Why was the exclosure less than effective?

P. 14, near end of first paragraph: “Fencing projects to control livestock use in riparian

areas is [sic] not a guarantee of success for recovery of the riparian function.” Why not?

P. 17, paragraph 2: A backpack electrofisher is mentioned as the sampling gear for

population estimates. This probably means the current used will be pulsed DC. The

drawbacks of high rates of fish injury and death from pulsed DC should be

acknowledged, and the advantages of using far less destructive unpulsed DC (nonbackpack units) should be considered. We understand that the Montana Department of

Fish Wildlife & Parks has banned use of pulsed DC for sampling fish in that state.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

94

P. 18, Task 12: Landowner maintenance of riparian protection fences is stated. What will

be the quality control on the maintenance?

ISRP Fundable or Not Reviewed and No Comparison with CBFWA

Recommendations: Policy Issues

ProjectID: 21006

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

within the Inter Mountain Ecoprovince

Sponsor: NHI

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: Inter-Mountain

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

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

consistent within the NWPPC Framework wildlife-habitat relationships process.

Sponsor Request FY01: $84,571

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $84,571

CBFWA Recommendation: DNF

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Technically sound. Fundable if

needed in subbasin assessment by EDT. Same as 21005 in Gorge Province.

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Fundable as amended. The technical difficulties were adequately resolved in the

response. If funded, we would recommend that the field validation be conducted in a

‘blind’ study and that they report the percent of the original target of, say 75, random

points in each habitat type that was not accessed during field validation of the map.

The response did not contain a direct expression of a need by the fish and wildlife

managers at a regional level. For example, there were no letters of support from the fish

and wildlife project managers, although participants at the subbasin meetings were

supportive and expressed that they would use the maps. The ISRP agrees with CBFWA

that if habitat mapping at the proposed scale is primarily to be used for the EDT

component of the NWPPC habitat assessment process, then the project should be

endorsed by those using EDT and perhaps funded through the EDT development process.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

before the project could be recommended for funding.

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

for field testing, the proposal appears to provide adequate technical background and
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

95

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific comments and questions.

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

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

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

that could not be accessed in the field be reported? Will all 32 classes be ground truthed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the field?

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

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

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

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

utility of the project.

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

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

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

procedure.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

96

ISRP and CBFWA Agree: Do Not Fund

ProjectID: 21003

Upper Columbia Subbasin Native Rainbow Population Study

Sponsor: WT

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: Inter-Mountain

Short Description: Evaluate structure, dynamics, and long-term viability of selected

rainbow populations in Colville National Forest

Sponsor Request FY01: $44,850

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $135,450

CBFWA Recommendation: DNF

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Do Not Fund

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Do not fund. Further ISRP response review was not warranted. The idea is good and

warrants a revised proposal in future years. The experimental design is not adequate for

the objectives and the objectives are not focused on the key problems such as assessing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

conditions, and channel dynamics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

treatment replications and examining more than just perceived optimal habitat types.

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

been done. Also, it is important to know whether they are redband, rainbow, or a hybrid
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

97

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

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

been screened genetically.

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

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

electrofishing, giving consideration to the use of unpulsed DC.

ProjectID: 21032

Eastern Washington Survey for Townsend's big-eared bat

Sponsor: WDFW

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: Inter-Mountain

Short Description: This project will search and inspect all appropriate old cabins, barns,

buildings for Townsend's big-eared bats. It appears these rare bats prefer these older

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

sites.

Sponsor Request FY01: $73,000

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $143,500

CBFWA Recommendation: DNF

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Do Not Fund

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

whether it is possible to check all, or how a subset to be checked would be selected. In

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

an analytical approach to this subject significantly limits the utility of the findings.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

98

ProjectID: 21022

Evaluate Fish Habitat on the Middle Spokane / Little Spokane Rivers

Sponsor: Spokane County Public Works Department: Utilities Division

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: Spokane

Short Description: Identify target reaches on the Middle Spokane and Little Spokane

Rivers. Use the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology to characterize the amount of

available habitat for target reaches.

Sponsor Request FY01: $93,000

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $156,000

CBFWA Recommendation: DNF

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Do Not Fund

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Do not fund. The unsolicited response is largely a reaction to the misperception that the

ISRP rejected this proposal because the ISRP rejects use of IFIM. That is not what ISRP

stated. The proposal was criticized for not clearly showing relevance to the FWP or

benefit to fish and wildlife. It was further criticized for failing to describe methods and

analyses, which calls into question the quality of this proposed application of IFIM. The

ISRP did not suggest an overall rejection of IFIM but rather suggested that IFIM is one of

several tools useful in evaluating quantity, quality, and adequacy of fish habitat. As with

any modeling exercise, the outcome is only as good as the data input, model analysis, and

interpretation, and these were inadequately presented. The ISRP specifically stated that

some provision for ground-truthing or local biological baselining is needed in a modeling

study that purports to provide specific local management recommendations as an output.

That was not included in the proposal, and the proponent who presented the proposal

verbally stated that it would not be done. The proposal and the presentation both gave

little biological information and little evidence that the project team had adequate

biological background to conduct the proposed study.

ISRP Preliminary Recommendation and Comments:

Do not fund. No response was warranted.

The proposal is generally well organized with respect to hierarchy of subjects but does

not link the project closely to the Fish and Wildlife Program or other projects in the

basin, does not indicate benefits to fish and wildlife, and does not adequately describe

methods and analyses. The methods section is a mere list of general procedures, often

phrased as objectives. What lies behind this proposal appears to be a controversy over

minimum instream flows set by the Washington Dept. of Ecology, following input from

WDFW.

The proposed project is based on IFIM/PHABSIM technique, the validity of which is

controversial among fish biologists (Castleberry et al. 1996; Van Winkel et al. 1997), and

the sponsor does not seem aware of the drawbacks and cautions with regard to its use.

We question whether the IFIM parameters proposed here are comprehensive enough for
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

99

this area. The effort would need to incorporate ground truthing—measures of important

physical habitat features and fish abundances at a wide variety of flows. Stalnaker (1990)

maintained that the minimum flow concept is a myth and should be discarded. Stream

ecologists now realize that, instead, full annual flow regimes should be considered; a

wide, in part seasonal variation of flows tends to be the natural condition to which the

biota is adapted and therefore often requires (Hill et al. 1991).

The project includes the tasks, 1. Consultation, 2. Collection of data for use in a model,

and 3. Complete the validation study (p. 2). What is meant by “consultation,” and what is

to be accomplished by it? Exactly what data will be collected and by what means? What

are statewide preference curves? Why would they be valid rather than site-specific data?

What are the properties of the model that is mentioned? What is meant by “complete the

validation study”? How would the report use factors such as physical feasibility, risk and

economics to formulate recommendations? The abstract provides more information

(incomplete as it is) on some of these subjects than does the body of the proposal.

Facilities and equipment (item g) required to complete the proposal were not given. The

information on qualifications of the project personnel is completely inadequate. Input into

the proposal from biologists seems to be lacking. No basic literature on stream ecology

and fish habitat was referenced. Unless basic stream ecology and stream fish

requirements are well understood, then the project is unlikely to pay off in terms of fish

and wildlife benefits.

References:

Castleberry, D. T., and 11 co-authors. 1996. Uncertainty and instream flow standards.

Fisheries 21(8):20-21.

Hill, M. T., W. S. Platts, and R. L. Beschta. 1991. Ecological and geomorphological

concepts for instream and out-of-channel requirements. Rivers: Studies in the Science,

Environmental Policy, and Law of Instream Flow 2:198-210.

Stalnacker, C. B. 1990. Minimum flow is a myth. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv.

Biological Rept. 90(5):31-33.

Van Winkel, W., and 7 co-authors. Uncertainty and instream flow standards:

perspectives based on hydropower research and assessment. Fisheries 22(7):21-22.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

100

ProjectID: 21030

Forest Carnivore Surveys for Spokane Subbasin

Sponsor: WDFW

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: Spokane

Short Description: This project will conduct surveys to verify many reported sightings

of the lynx, wolverine, marten and fisher in the Spokane Subbasin. Techniques will

include the use of remote cameras, bait stations, scratch stations, and track stations.

Sponsor Request FY01: $70,000

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $140,000

CBFWA Recommendation: DNF

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Do Not Fund

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Do not fund. A response review was not warranted. This weak proposal fails to establish

why surveys of forest carnivores are of particular relevance to the Fish and Wildlife

Program. It provides an inadequate technical background to the problem, simply

describing the animals. It fails to present methods by which the surveys will be conducted

and does not establish how the work would be beneficial to fish and wildlife. Although it

would be useful to verify the sightings of the forest carnivores, the proposal contains few

details about methods and no indication of what the likelihood of detecting a species may

be assuming it is in fact present.

ProjectID: 21031

Land Use Analyses of Spokane County

Sponsor: WDFW

Province: Inter-Mountain

Subbasin: Spokane

Short Description: This project analyzes and compares past and current vegetation types

and land uses in order to determine, and for the future, predict, the impacts different land

uses and human development has had and will have on wildlife in Spokane County.

Sponsor Request FY01: $47,000

Sponsor Request FY01-03: $94,000

CBFWA Recommendation: DNF

ISRP Recommendation Compared with CBFWA's: Agree, Do Not Fund

ISRP Final Recommendation and Comments:

Do not fund. The proposal is not adequately tied to the Fish and Wildlife Program and

potential benefits are not demonstrated. A response review was not warranted.

Specific comments and questions to address in future proposals.

1. Field sampling procedures for public and private land should be described for ground

truth (field testing) of the accuracy of classifications from the recent photographs. How

many randomly selected points would be visited in each class? What procedures will be

applied if access is denied? What accuracy is required and what are the criteria for
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

101

accepting the results? If changes are made based on field visits, will a second set of

random points be selected?

2. We assume that procedures developed for digitizing and classifying the recent

photographs would be used to digitize and classify the old photographs, but these kind of

assumptions should be spilled out in detail. How will the accuracy of classifications

based on the old photographs be assessed?

3. No reference is given to the FWP or other projects funded by BPA.
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

102

Table of Proposals

Sorted by Province, ISRP Agreement with CBFWA, and Subbasin

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin CBFWA

Category

ISRP Comparison FY01 FY01-FY03 Page #

Columbia River Gorge Proposals 9

ISRP Disagrees with CBFWA: ISRP Fundable and CBFWA Lower Priority or Do Not Fund 9

21004 Determination of difficult passage

areas by examining swimming

activity of upriver migrating

salmon implanted with EMG

transmitters

PNNL Klickitat Recommended

Action

Disagree with

CBFWA priority.

This is a high

priority project that

deserves funding.

$212,929 $632,929 9

21016 Accelerate the Application of

Integrated Fruit Management to

Reduce the Risk of Pesticide

Pollution in Fifteenmile Sub-basin

Orchards

Wy'East

RC&D

Fifteenmile Do Not Fund Disagree, this

proposal is

fundable.

$308,772 $738,457 10

ISRP Disagrees with CBFWA: ISRP Do Not Fund and CBFWA High Priority or Recommended Action 12

199304001 15-Mile Creek Steelhead Smolt

Production

ODFW Fifteenmile Urgent/High

Priority

Disagree, Do Not

Fund

$33,704 $92,204 12

21011 Assess the Current Status and

Biotic Integrity of the Resident

Fish Assemblage in Bonneville

Reservoir

USGS/

CRRL

Bonneville

Reservoir

Recommended

Action

Disagree, Do Not

Fund

$351,700 $1,099,700 13

21024 Evaluate Hatchery Reform

Principles

NMFS Wind Recommended

Action

Disagree, Do Not

Fund

$1,063,200 $3,351,307 15

21026 Inventory and Restore Beaver and

Beaver Habitats

YN Klickitat Recommended

Action

Disagree, Do Not

Fund

$205,440 $675,440 17
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

103

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin CBFWA

Category

ISRP Comparison FY01 FY01-FY03 Page #

ISRP Conditional Fundable Recommendation - CBFWA High Priority or Recommended Action 18

Klickitat Fisheries Program Recommendation 18

198811525 Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project

Design and Construction

YN Klickitat Urgent/High

Priority

Fundable on interim

basis.

$3,683,000 $5,867,000 24

198812025 Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project

(YKFP) Management, Data and

Habitat (Klickitat Only)

YN Klickitat Urgent/High

Priority

Fundable on interim

basis.

$363,510 $1,170,964 24

199506325 Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project

Monitoring And Evaluation

(Klickitat Only)

YN Klickitat Urgent/High

Priority

Fundable on interim

basis.

$447,723 $1,468,082 25

199701725 Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project

Operation and Maintenance

(Klickitat Only)

YN Klickitat Urgent/High

Priority

Fundable on interim

basis.

$0 $2,530,000 26

Other Gorge Proposals with ISRP Conditional Fundable Recommendations 27

21012 Evaluate Status of Coastal

Cutthroat Trout in the Columbia

River Basin above Bonneville

Dam

USGSCRRLColumbia Gorge Urgent/High

Priority

Partially agree,

objective 1 is

fundable, funding

of any other

objective should

require further

review per the ISRP

comments.

$39,770 $533,734 27

199304000 Fifteenmile Creek Habitat

Restoration Project (Request For

Multi-Year Funding)

ODFW Fifteenmile Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable.

Concerns should be

addressed in

Council review or

BPA contracting

process.

$220,040 $670,113 28
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

104

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin CBFWA

Category

ISRP Comparison FY01 FY01-FY03 Page #

21001 Fifteenmile Creek Riparian

Fencing / Physical stream Survey

Project

ODFW Fifteenmile Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable.

Concerns should be

addressed in

Council review or

BPA contracting

process.

$151,685 $471,843 30

199705600 Lower Klickitat Riparian and InChannel Habitat Enhancement

Project

YN Klickitat Urgent/High

Priority

Fundable if funding

is based on

achievement of

milestones.

$313,318 $1,090,459 31

ISRP and CBFWA Agree: ISRP Fundable and CBFWA High Priority or Recommended Action 33

21013 Western Pond Turtle Recovery -

Columbia River Gorge

WDFW Columbia Gorge Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable $167,025 $361,225 33

Hood River Production Program 34

198805303 Hood River Production Program -

CTWSRO M&E

CTWSRO Hood Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable $509,959 $1,609,959 37

198805304 Hood River Production Program -

ODFW M&E

ODFW Hood Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable $431,331 $1,321,331 38

198805307 Hood River Production Program:

Powerdale, Parkdale, Oak Springs

O&M (88-053-07 & 88-053-08)

CTWS and

ODFW

Hood Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable $1,082,983 $4,796,653 39

198902900 Hood River Production Program -

Pelton Ladder - Hatchery

ODFW Hood Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable $139,534 $254,545 40
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

105

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin CBFWA

Category

ISRP Comparison FY01 FY01-FY03 Page #

199500700 Hood River Production - PGE:

O&M

PGE Hood Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable $46,300 $96,300 41

199802100 Hood River Fish Habitat Project CTWSRO Hood Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable $299,953 $1,699,953 41

21014 Mitigate Streambank Sediment

Sources in Fifteenmile Watershed

using Bioengineering Techniques

Wasco

SWCD

Fifteenmile Recommended

Action

Agree, Fundable $159,355 $202,934 42

21019 Fifteenmile Subbasin Water Right

Acquisition Program

OWT Fifteenmile Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable $32,000 $128,000 43

199801900 Wind River Watershed Restoration UCD,USFS,

USGSCRRL,

WDFW

Wind Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable $658,532 $2,770,221 44

21009 Assess current and potential

salmonid production in

Rattlesnake Creek associated with

restoration efforts

UCD, YN,

USGS

White Salmon Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable $227,951 $736,756 45

21033 White Salmon River Watershed

Enhancement Project

UCD White Salmon Recommended

Action

Agree, Fundable $242,221 $801,748 46

199405400 Bull trout population assessment in

the Columbia River Gorge, WA.

WDFW Klickitat Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable $155,938 $500,938 46

21027 Inventory and Assess Amphibian

Populations in the Klickitat

Subbasin

YN Klickitat Recommended

Action

Agree, Fundable $135,797 $401,391 47
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

106

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin CBFWA

Category

ISRP Comparison FY01 FY01-FY03 Page #

ISRP Fundable or Not Reviewed and No Comparison with CBFWA Recommendations: Policy Issues 49

21005 Characterize and Assess WildlifeHabitat Types and Structural

Conditions for Sub-Basins within

the Columbia Gorge Ecoprovince

NHI Columbia Gorge Do Not Fund Technically sound.

Fundable if needed

in subbasin

assessment by

EDT.

$58,521 $58,521 49

21015 Riparian Buffers Wasco

SWCD

Fifteenmile Do Not Fund The position looks

valid and offers

potential benefit.

However, funding

the position is a

policy decision.

$73,414 $226,914 51

21028 Klickitat Watershed and Habitat

Enhancement Project

YN Klickitat Recommended

Action

NA $2,741,360 $9,001,360 52

ISRP and CBFWA Agree: Do Not Fund 53

21010 Feeding, growth, and

smoltification of juvenile steelhead

infested with the ciliated

protozoan, Heteropolaria lwoffi

USGSCRRL,

USFWS

Wind Do Not Fund Agree, Do Not

Fund

$106,988 $467,132 53
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

107

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin CBFWA

Category

ISRP Comparison FY01 FY01-FY03 Page #

Inter-Mountain Proposals 54

ISRP Disagrees with CBFWA: ISRP Fundable and CBFWA Recommended Action or Do Not Fund 54

21025 Intermountain Province Resident

Fish Symposium

LRF Inter-Mountain Recommended

Action

Disagree with

CBFWA priority.

This is a high

priority project.

$41,000 $129,297 54

21002 Early life history and survival of

adfluvial rainbow trout in the San

Poil River Basin

PNNL San Poil Recommended

Action

Disagree with

CBFWA priority.

This is a high

priority project.

$155,092 $495,092 55

Mule Deer Projects: 56

21023 Determine causes of mule deer

population declines in the IM

Columbia Basin: a test of the

"apparent competition " hypothesis

WSU Inter-Mountain DNF Disagree. This

research proposal is

fundable and should

be of equal or

higher priority than

project 21029.

$205,532 $531,625 56

21029 A cooperative approach to

identifying the role of forage

quality in affecting physical

condition....of mule deer in north

central Washington.

WDFW Inter-Mountain Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, fundable if

addresses ISRP

concerns in Council

review or BPA

contracting process.

$133,650 $325,250 58
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

108

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin CBFWA

Category

ISRP Comparison FY01 FY01-FY03 Page #

ISRP Disagrees with CBFWA: ISRP Do Not Fund and CBFWA High Priority or Recommended Action 60

21020 Monitor and Enhance the Lakes

and Streams of the Spokane Indian

Reservation

STOI Lake Roosevelt Urgent/High

Priority

Disagree, Do Not

Fund

$92,177 $281,177 60

199502800 Restore Moses Lake Recreational

Fishery

WDFW Lake Roosevelt Urgent/High

Priority

Disagree, Do Not

Fund

$213,072 $653,676 64

21035 Phalon Lake Native Redband

Rainbow trout Trap Construction

and O & M

WDFW Lake Roosevelt Urgent/High

Priority

Disagree, Do Not

Fund

$126,000 $199,671 67

ISRP Conditional Fundable Recommendation - CBFWA High Priority or Recommended Action 72

199502700 Develop and Implement Recovery

Plan for Depressed Lake Roosevelt

White Sturgeon Populations.

STOI Lake Roosevelt Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable $152,000 $537,000 72

21018 Implement Fisheries Enhancement

on the Coeur d'Alene Indian

Reservation: Hangman Creek

Cd'A Spokane Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, fundable if

project addresses

ISRP concerns in

Council review or

BPA contracting

process.

$179,483 $775,062 75

ISRP and CBFWA Agree: ISRP Fundable and CBFWA High Priority 77

21017 Implement Wildlife Habitat

Protection and Restoration on the

Coeur d'Alene Indian Reservation:

Hangman Watershed.

Cd'A Spokane Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable $158,252 $3,738,752 77

21034 Colville Tribes Restore Habitat for

Sharp-tailed Grouse

CCT-FWD Lake Roosevelt Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable $169,400 $508,200 78

198503800 Colville Tribal Fish Hatchery CCT Lake Roosevelt Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable $789,642 $2,489,346 79
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

109

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin CBFWA

Category

ISRP Comparison FY01 FY01-FY03 Page #

199104600 Spokane Tribal Hatchery

(Galbraith Springs) Operation and

Maintenance

STOI Lake Roosevelt Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable $549,856 $1,735,856 80

199404300 Lake Roosevelt Fisheries

Evaluation Program

STOI Lake Roosevelt Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable $1,113,584 $3,112,168 82

199104700 Sherman Creek Hatchery

Operations and Maintenance

WDFW Lake Roosevelt Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable $269,898 $802,864 85

199500900 Rainbow Trout Net Pen Rearing

Project

LRDA Lake Roosevelt Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable $100,550 $328,328 86

21021 Ford Hatchery Improvement,

Operation And Maintenance

WDFW Lake Roosevelt Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable $213,249 $768,463 87

199106200 Spokane Tribe of Indians Wildlife

Mitigation Project

STOI Lake Roosevelt Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable $1,528,806 $4,787,306 88

199204800 Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range

Operation And Maintenance

Project

CCT-FWD Lake Roosevelt Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable $388,071 $1,263,471 89

199506700 Colville Tribes Performance

Contract for Continuing

Acquisition

CCT-FWD Lake Roosevelt Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable $1,500,000 $4,500,000 89

199800300 Spokane Tribe of Indians Wildlife

Operations and Maintenance

STOI Lake Roosevelt Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable $182,497 $558,974 90

21008 Evaluation of the Banks Lake

Fishery

WDFW Lake Roosevelt Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable $170,408 $857,908 91

199501100 Chief Joseph Kokanee

Enhancement Project

CCT San Poil Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable $1,145,762 $3,987,762 92

199001800 Evaluate Rainbow Trout/Habitat

Improvements Of Tributaries To

Lake Roosevelt

CCT San Poil Urgent/High

Priority

Agree, Fundable $199,019 $826,019 92
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

110

ProjectID Title Sponsor Subbasin CBFWA

Category

ISRP Comparison FY01 FY01-FY03 Page #

ISRP Fundable or Not Reviewed and No Comparison with CBFWA Recommendations: Policy Issues 94

21006 Characterize and Assess WildlifeHabitat Types and Structural

Conditions for Sub-Basins within

the Inter Mountain Ecoprovince

NHI Inter-Mountain DNF Technically sound.

Fundable if needed

in subbasin

assessment by

EDT.

$84,571 $84,571 94

ISRP and CBFWA Agree: Do Not Fund 96

21003 Upper Columbia Subbasin Native

Rainbow Population Study

WT Inter-Mountain DNF Agree, Do Not

Fund

$44,850 $135,450 96

21032 Eastern Washington Survey for

Townsend's big-eared bat

WDFW Inter-Mountain DNF Agree, Do Not

Fund

$73,000 $143,500 97

21022 Evaluate Fish Habitat on the

Middle Spokane / Little Spokane

Rivers

Spokane

County

Spokane DNF Agree, Do Not

Fund

$93,000 $156,000 98

21030 Forest Carnivore Surveys for

Spokane Subbasin

WDFW Spokane DNF Agree, Do Not

Fund

$70,000 $140,000 100

21031 Land Use Analyses of Spokane

County

WDFW Spokane DNF Agree, Do Not

Fund

$47,000 $94,000 100
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

111

Index of Proposals by Project Number

ProjectID Page # ProjectID Page # ProjectID Page #

21001 30 21028 52 199501100 92

21002 55 21029 58 199502700 72

21003 96 21030 100 199502800 64

21004 9 21031 100 199506325 25

21005 49 21032 97 199506700 89

21006 94 21033 46 199701725 26

21008 91 21034 78 199705600 31

21009 45 21035 67 199800300 90

21010 53 198503800 79 199801900 44

21011 13 198805303 37 199802100 41

21012 27 198805304 38

21013 33 198805307 39

21014 42 198811525 24

21015 51 198812025 24

21016 10 198902900 40

21017 77 199001800 92

21018 75 199104600 80

21019 43 199104700 85

21020 60 199106200 88

21021 87 199204800 89

21022 98 199304000 28

21023 56 199304001 12

21024 15 199404300 82

21025 54 199405400 46

21026 17 199500700 41

21027 47 199500900 86
ISRP 2000-9 Gorge and Inter-Mountain Final Report

112

________________________________________

:\fish\em\ww\isrp\province reviews\isrp 2000-9 intmtn and gorge final - maps.doc