Independent Scientific Review Panel

for the Northwest Power Planning Council

851 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1100

Portland, Oregon 97204

isrp@nwppc.org

Final Review of Fiscal Year 2002 Project

Proposals for the Columbia Plateau Province

ISRP 2001-8

August 10, 2001 
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

Columbia Plateau Review Team

Richard Alldredge

Charles C. Coutant

Daniel Goodman

Jack Griffith

Susan S. Hanna

Nancy Huntly

Lyman McDonald

John D. McIntyre

Brian Riddell

William Smoker

Bruce Ward

Richard Whitney

Richard N. Williams
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

i

ISRP Final Review of Fiscal Year 2002 Proposals for the

Columbia Plateau Province

Introduction and Review Process................................................................................................................................. 1

Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting of Results.................................................................................................... 2

Recommendation Categories ......................................................................................................................................... 6

Preliminary Recommendation and Comments on Each Proposal........................................................................... 7

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) Proposals......................................................................................... 9

Umatilla and Walla Walla Hatchery and Related Passage Proposals............................................................... 25

CRP, CREP, Buffer, and No-till Proposals........................................................................................................... 31

Bull Trout.................................................................................................................................................................... 37

Lamprey....................................................................................................................................................................... 39

Hanford Reach Proposals ......................................................................................................................................... 42

ISRP and CBFWA Agree: Fundable through the Action Plan Process ........................................................... 49

ISRP and CBFWA Agree: ISRP Fundable and CBFWA High Priority .......................................................... 52

Deschutes ............................................................................................................................................................ 52

John Day.............................................................................................................................................................. 54

Umatilla ............................................................................................................................................................... 61

Walla Walla......................................................................................................................................................... 66

Mainstem Snake ................................................................................................................................................. 70

Palouse................................................................................................................................................................. 73

Tucannon............................................................................................................................................................. 73

Yakima ................................................................................................................................................................. 74

Yakima Screen Proposals................................................................................................................................. 75

More Yakima ...................................................................................................................................................... 77

Rock Creek.......................................................................................................................................................... 82

Mainstem Columbia........................................................................................................................................... 83

Crab Creek........................................................................................................................................................... 86

ISRP Agrees with CBFWA: ISRP Fundable and CBFWA High Priority, but Crediting Issue with BPA 88

ISRP Agrees with CBFWA: ISRP Fundable and CBFWA Recommended Action....................................... 96

ISRP Disagrees with CBFWA: ISRP Fundable and CBFWA Do Not Fund ................................................102

ISRP Fundable and CBFWA Do Not Fund - Policy Issue...............................................................................103

ISRP Agrees with CBFWA if Funded in Part.....................................................................................................104

ISRP Disagrees with CBFWA: ISRP Fundable in Part and CBFWA Do Not Fund ...................................108

ISRP Disagrees with CBFWA: ISRP Not Fundable and CBFWA High Priority ........................................109

ISRP Disagrees with CBFWA: ISRP Not Fundable and CBFWA Recommended Action........................114

ISRP and CBFWA Agree: Do Not Fund.............................................................................................................122

Table of Proposals .......................................................................................................................................................124
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

ii

Index of Proposals by Project ID

Project ID Page Project ID Page Project ID Page Project ID Page

25001 94 25052 44 198402100 58 199803400 22

25002 93 25053 38 198506200 77 199901000 33

25003 88 25054 49 198710001 110 199901300 80

25004 88 25055 64 198710002 111 199908800 60

25005 114 25056 83 198802200 25 200001500 56

25006 33 25058 107 198805302 28 200001900 73

25007 41 25059 61 198805306 53 200002300 90

25008 73 25060 83 198811525 20 200002500 93

25009 97 25061 122 198812025 21 200002600 66

25010 52 25062 79 198902401 63 200003100 54

25011 84 25063 120 198902700 30 200003800 29

25012 39 25064 71 198903500 26 200003900 27

25013 78 25065 98 199000500 27 200005200 41

25014 32 25066 68 199000501 26 200020116 91

25015 51 25067 60 199009200 84 200020139 67

25016 118 25068 82 199102900 72

25017 51 25069 55 199105700 75

25019 118 25070 46 199106100 86

25020 92 25072 114 199107500 76

25021 81 25073 32 199200900 75

25022 23 25074 53 199206200 92

25023 24 25075 98 199306600 59

25024 24 25076 102 199401806 112

25025 23 25077 35 199401807 35

25026 74 25078 91 199402600 40

25027 96 25079 45 199404200 104

25028 106 25080 32 199404400 87

25029 65 25081 62 199405400 37

25030 100 25082 69 199405400 38

25031 50 25083 115 199405900 80

25032 95 25084 117 199406900 43

25033 100 25085 109 199503300 75

25034 119 25086 89 199506001 62

25035 47 25087 123 199506325 15

25036 77 25088 57 199506425 21

25037 48 25089 121 199601100 66

25038 47 25090 120 199603501 80

25039 101 25091 121 199604601 105

25040 97 25092 94 199701325 19

25041 103 25093 105 199701400 43

25042 86 25094 113 199703400 54

25043 87 25095 107 199705100 22

25044 122 25097 85 199705300 81

25045 46 25098 103 199801600 59

25046 101 25099 37 199801700 57

25047 34 25100 108 199801800 55

25048 34 25101 41 199802000 69

25049 70 195505500 61 199802200 56

25050 36 198343500 25 199802800 104

25051 116 198343600 31 199803300 79
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

1

ISRP Final Review of Fiscal Year 2002 Proposals

for the Columbia Plateau Province

Introduction and Review Process

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

submitted for Fiscal Year 2002 funding in the Columbia Plateau Province. It contains

final recommendations and detailed comments for each proposal submitted.

The review process to develop these recommendations and comments included several

steps. On June 15, the ISRP released a preliminary review of Columbia Plateau

proposals (ISRP 2001-6; www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2001-6.pdf). The review process

for that report included several elements that are the foundation of the provincial review

process. Each proposal received review by at least three reviewers and discussion by the

larger review team to reach consensus. Presentations were given on each proposal.

Following each presentation, an opportunity was provided for a question and answer

session between reviewers and the proponents. In addition, the ISRP review teams

visited most of the subbasins in the province and were provided slide presentations for

the subbasins they were unable to visit.

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

weeks to respond to the ISRP’s comments. The ISRP received responses from 100 of the

104 proposals for which a response was requested and from several proposals for which a

response was not requested. Only those responses that were requested were reviewed.

The ISRP reviewers who had reviewed the original proposal reviewed the response

related to that proposal, and the ISRP review teams as a whole discussed the responses.

The ISRP received CBFWA’s Draft FY 2002-2004 Columbia Plateau Province Work

Plan, as scheduled on August 3, 2001 (www.cbfwa.org/files/province/plateau/subsum.htm), and

briefly conferred to compare the ISRP review team recommendations with CBFWA’s

recommendations and comments. Consequently, each ISRP recommendation includes a

comparison with CBFWA’s prioritization and takes into account project sponsor

responses to the ISRP’s preliminary review.

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

process. The ISRP continues to be enthusiastic about the new approach and notes

improvement in the process. Specifically, the site visits and presentations were well

organized, informative, and demonstrated an improving trend over those in the Gorge,

Inter-Mountain, and Mountain Columbia province workshops. This is evidence that the

review process is generating benefits towards better organization, coordination, and

scientific emphasis to projects.

With the exception of a programmatic statement regarding monitoring, this report does

not include a programmatic section with identification of general issues that cut across

subbasins and provinces. Although many such issues arose, the ISRP ran out of time to
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

2

reach consensus recommendations on these broad issues. In addition, the ISRP was

unable to complete the response review of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan

proposals in the Columbia Plateau. Rather than delay release of this report, the ISRP

plans to include discussion of these issues and reviews in later reports.

Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting of Results

This programmatic statement on monitoring and evaluation (M&E) should be considered

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

many proposal reviews.

A primary review function of the ISRP is to determine if projects will benefit fish and

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

and report results. The ISRP has found a pattern of inadequacy in these areas and offers

the following observations.

Evaluating the adequacy of the monitoring and evaluation component is still difficult in

the present generation of proposals. Project proposals often lack detailed plans for the

kind of monitoring and evaluation that is generally judged to be necessary by the ISRP.

Part of the difficulty lies in the narrow focus of some of the projects compared to the

larger spatial scale on which an ecological response can reasonably be expected. This is

particularly true of many proposals for which the target species to be benefited is an

anadromous fish. Part of the solution may be found by treating monitoring more carefully

and explicitly in subbasin summaries, and eventually in subbasin plans. Monitoring of

ecological conditions and fish stock status in the subbasin as a whole must be sufficient

to reveal whether the initial diagnosis of the subbasin was correct, and whether the

ecological problems are being solved by the cumulative effectiveness of the projects in

that subbasin.

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

of the project’s activities. The large scale aspects of monitoring may best be addressed by

distinct projects that have the explicit objective of monitoring ecological conditions and

stock status for a large area, e.g., a subbasin, basin, or region, while the more particular

aspects of project-specific monitoring need to be built into many of the individual

projects. Eventually the adequacy of the monitoring for a project will be judged in terms

of the combined project-specific monitoring in the proposal and the linkage (which

should be described in the proposal) to the larger scale monitoring in the subbasin. For

now, each project should propose the level of monitoring (see discussion below) that is

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

the project, and should outline the sampling design and methods that will be applied to

attain monitoring goals. The monitoring data may be provided directly as part of a project

proposal (thus included in its background, methods and budget) or may be provided by

specific reference through other parallel or larger scale (e.g., subbasin level) project

proposals.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

3

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

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

the monitoring is conducted by another project. The standard applied to review has been

to ask for an M&E plan or a project link to a larger M&E program that can help

determine whether an action provides biologically measurable results, ultimately in terms

of fish or wildlife numbers. The ISRP is not recommending major research-level data

collection for all projects. Most monitoring does not provide strong evidence of cause and

effect, which requires an explicit experimental framework. Rather, we envision use of

cost-effective procedures that can be easily replicated by new personnel. Monitoring and

evaluating at the basin, province, or subbasin scale may realize additional savings among

cooperating projects. Proponents of related projects would benefit from collectively

designing their monitoring and evaluation activities.

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

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

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

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

Day River Basin? How does it compare to a project to evaluate the survival rates of adult

salmonids caught and released from tangle nets? Monitoring can be categorized as Tier 1,

Tier 2, or Tier 3, as defined in the NMFS All-H document (Conservation of Columbia

Basin Fish: Final Basinwide Salmon Recovery Strategy, Volume 1, Table 4). Bisbal

(2001) defined Tier 1 monitoring as trend monitoring, which “tracks the variability of a

particular parameter over a long period of time, and relies on obtaining data from revisits

to a single site.” Tier 2 monitoring requires probabilistic selection of study sites and

repeated visits to provide inductive inferences to large areas and long time periods. Tier

3 monitoring is intended for those projects or groups of projects where the objectives

include establishment of mechanistic links between management actions and salmon or

other fish or wildlife population response. Bisbal (2001) defines this level of effort as

effects or response monitoring; the repetitive measurement of environmental variables to

detect changes caused by external influences. The key words here are “establishment of

mechanistic links” and “detect changes caused by external influences.” Generally, the

results of Tier 3 monitoring qualify as research and are publishable in the refereed

scientific literature. The ISRP does not expect expensive Tier 3 monitoring for most

small individual projects, although a project could certainly contain Tier 3 level

monitoring objectives. The ISRP does expect each individual proposal to include at least

Tier 1 or Tier 2 monitoring, and this monitoring often can be both simple and

inexpensive. Tier 1 monitoring may be adequate for projects such as culvert replacement

or water addition (e.g., are fish found upstream of the culvert after replacement? Have

fish colonized once-dry creeks after water addition?). For any monitoring, the data

gathered should be summarized, analyzed, and reported regularly to allow interpretation

of the effects or effectiveness of project techniques or efforts.

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

relationships, does not provide inductive inferences to larger areas or time periods, and in

general, the results do not qualify as research. However, Tier 1 monitoring on similar

projects replicated over time and space can provide compelling evidence for general
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

4

conclusions. An example of Tier 1 monitoring would be trend monitoring after culvert

replacement to provide observations of whether or not adults pass through it –

understanding that it might take a year or two or a cycle of abundance before surpluses of

fish below encourage them to move upstream. Stream reaches above replaced culverts

might be visited on a rotating basis rather than every year.

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

inductive inferences to larger areas or time periods than can be surveyed with funding in

many individual projects. For example, the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds

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

coastal coho streams is a Tier 2 level monitoring and evaluation program. This program,

successfully implemented for estimation of coho distribution and abundance, applies a

rigorous sampling design to answer key monitoring questions, provides integration of

sampling efforts and has greatly improved coordination among state, federal, and tribal

governments, along with local watershed groups. This program is a good model for Tier

2 level monitoring in Provinces and Subbasins of the Columbia Basin. The model can

easily be modified for Tier 2 level monitoring of terrestrial projects. The ISRP would also

recommend that individual proposals support overall Tier 2 level monitoring projects to

collectively monitor the effectiveness of, for example, habitat improvements in a

subbasin. Most larger projects should implement sampling designs of the Tier 2 type.

After the response review, two projects, Salmonid Population and Habitat Monitoring in

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

and Stressor Evaluation (25010) offer to implement a coordinated approach to fish

population and habitat monitoring using the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds

Monitoring Program. This approach has successfully been implemented in Oregon’s

coastal watersheds to apply a rigorous sampling design (EPA EMAP design) and has

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

local watershed groups. These two projects could be used as model Tier II level

monitoring projects for the rest of the Columbia Basin.

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

biological and environmental conditions at the scale of provinces and subbasins. Tier 2

level monitoring will be required to provide inductive inferences to entire provinces,

subbasins, and many watersheds, because it is impossible to survey every square foot of

every stream bottom, riparian zone, and uplands area in these large regions every month

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

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

sites” selected by professional judgment in past years. The objectives of these projects

can only be met with Tier 2 level monitoring using probabilistic selection of survey sites

with limited replication. The ISRP recommends that the proponents of such projects

immediately begin to modify the current proposals to allow for valid inductive inferences

to the target areas. Surveys of sites and methods used in the past should overlap surveys

of sites and methods for new Tier 2 level monitoring for a few years.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

5

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

detect changes caused by external influences” is usually conducted as part of a research

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

often not needed by individual FWP projects, although projects for Tier 3 monitoring can

certainly be proposed and funded. The actions required to isolate cause and effect

relationships would be inappropriate for many individual projects. However, project

sponsors should be aware of and include references to past or current research or Tier 3

monitoring that support their proposal. Examples of Tier 3 monitoring would include: 1)

projects to evaluate the effects of different levels of fertilization on growth and survival

of juvenile salmonids with streams selected randomly for reference and treatment; 2)

projects to evaluate the survival rates of adult salmonids caught and released from tangle

nets; 3) projects to evaluate the survival rates of migrating juveniles past a dam at

different levels of spill and turbine passage; 4) projects to evaluate the swimming ability

of lamprey during upstream migration; 5) projects to evaluate the effectiveness of various

land restoration or management techniques, etc.

The ISRP recommends that principal investigators identify an appropriate level of

monitoring: Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3, and include details for incorporation of the

monitoring and evaluation in their proposals or their responses to reviews. It is helpful in

designing a monitoring program to consider the role and importance of evaluation in the

fish and wildlife program. Monitoring provides the information that will be used to

evaluate the success or failure of a project to contribute to the ultimate goals of fish and

wildlife recovery, preservation, or other forms of mitigation. Thus, each project should

explicitly state both its local, specific, and short-term goals and the ways in which these

contribute to the larger goals of fish and wildlife remediation and mitigation. These goals

should be cast in the form of measurable biological results and criteria for success, such

as habitat parameters and fish and wildlife numbers or performance measures. Bisbal

(2001) provides some useful guidelines for developing fish and wildlife evaluation plans.

He notes the utility of first including consideration of possible indicators, management

needs, planning of the evaluation component, the importance of sampling design, which

includes consideration of the statistical analyses that are anticipated, and the value of

pilot studies to test techniques and performance standards. Further, the ISRP envisions

long term monitoring and evaluation with the following characteristics: data are

unbiased; monitoring is cost-effective; responsibility for monitoring and evaluation is

specifically assigned; data have long-term, in addition to, immediate management value;

data are adequate to evaluate how well a project or technique is meeting goals; methods

are not changed over time unless techniques overlap; reports and databases document

methods, times, and location of samples; and reports are issued regularly and on time.

References.

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

wildlife in the Columbia River ecosystem. Environmental Management (In press).
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

6

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

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

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

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

15b. The Oregon Plan: Revisions to the steelhead supplement. State of Oregon, Salem,

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

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

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

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

Recommendation Categories

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

amendment to the Northwest Power Act. The amended Act directs the ISRP to review

projects in the context of the Council’s program and in regard to whether they:

1. are based on sound science principles;

2. benefit fish and wildlife;

3. have clearly defined objectives and outcomes; and

4. have provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results.

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

when making its recommendations regarding funding, and provides an explanation in

writing where its recommendations diverge from those of the ISRP.

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

which a proposal meets the ISRP review criteria and to capture the level of ISRP

confidence in a proposal. After its Fiscal Year 1999 review, the ISRP began using

“fundable” rather than “adequate proposal” because funding recommendations are the

common currency between the Council, CBFWA, and BPA. As such, the “fundable”

categories enable a ready comparison with CBFWA’s recommendations, which is part of

the ISRP review.

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

Each proposal does not have to contain tasks that independently meet each of the criteria

but can be an integral part of a program that provides the necessary elements. For

example, a habitat restoration proposal may use data from a separate monitoring and

evaluation proposal to measure results. The proposal must demonstrate this integration.

Some “fundable” proposals may require minor clarifications and adjustments to methods

and objectives by the sponsor in consultation with the Council and BPA in the final

project selection process.

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

supported, but also work that is not. In this case, the ISRP specifies which objectives or
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

7

tasks are not scientifically sound and recommends that these parts of the proposal not be

funded. Examples are proposals that include objectives that are not scientifically

supported, for instance a proposal for both background assessment work and concurrent

major on-the-ground implementation that could not be supported before results of the

assessment were known, and proposals that included use of unsound methods to meet a

particular objective.

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

the ISRP review criteria. One example is a proposal for an ongoing project that may offer

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

past results. Another example is a research proposal that is technically sound but does not

offer benefits to fish and wildlife because it substantially duplicates past efforts and does

not offer new insights. Usually a deficiency in one area is a symptom of overall

deficiency in the proposal. In most cases, proposals that receive “Not Fundable”

recommendations lack detailed methods, provision for monitoring and evaluation, and

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

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

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

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

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

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

ISRP comments also include observations on budgetary, in lieu, and other issues that are

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

will receive a “fundable” or “not fundable” recommendation. Instead, these comments

are intended to flag issues for the Council, BPA, CBFWA, and the public that require

further inquiry.

Preliminary Recommendation and Comments on Each Proposal

The ISRP’s final recommendations and a brief description of each proposal are provided

below. In cases where the ISRP and CBFWA recommendations differ, CBFWA

comments are also provided.1 The ISRP comments begin with sets of grouped proposals:

Yakima Fisheries Program proposals; Umatilla and Walla Walla Hatchery and Passage

proposals; CRP, CREP, and Buffer related proposals; lamprey proposals; bull trout

proposals; Hanford Reach proposals; and several proposals funded through the Action

Plan solicitation. The proposals are grouped this way so readers can readily refer to

general ISRP comments on the sets, can identify potential coordination between projects,

and see the extent of effort or potential effort for the particular topic. These sets include

proposals from the various subbasins across the entire Plateau.

Following these sets, remaining proposals are provided in three basic sets: ISRP

“fundable,” “fundable in part,” and “not fundable.” Within each set, the comments are

arranged by level of agreement with the CBFWA prioritization. Then proposals are

 

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.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

8

arranged by subbasin starting on the south side of the Columia River with the Deschutes

River Subbasin and going east to the Tucannon River Subbasin, then starting on the north

side of the Columia River with the Yakima River Subbasin and going east to the Crab

Creek Subbasin.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

9

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) Proposals

CORE PROPOSALS IN THE YKFP:

The core group of proposals that constitute the YKFP for the Yakima Basin are reviewed

in this section. The YKFP is co-managed by the Yakama Nation (YN) and the

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and has a long history of

development beginning in 1982 (NPPC 1982). Ultimately, the stated purpose of the

YKFP is:

“to test the assumption that new artificial production can be used to increase

natural production and to improve harvest opportunities, while maintaining the

long-term genetic fitness of the native salmonid populations and keeping

adverse ecological interaction within acceptable limits” (BPA 1996)

The specific objectives of the YKFP are to:

• enhance production of upper Yakima spring chinook production through

supplementation;

• re-introduce stocks formerly present in the basins;

• provide increased harvest opportunity; and

• to provide knowledge about the use of supplementation, so that it may be used to

mitigate effects on anadromous fisheries throughout the Columbia River Basin

(objectives stated in Project #198812025 YN and #199506425 WDFW).

The proposals included and funding recommendations are summarized below:

Proposal

number

Title (Agency) FY02 $$ Request Recommendation

#198812025 YKFP Management (YN) $1,262,548 Fundable, projected future

costs are similar

#198811525 YKFP Design & Construction

(YN)

$1,595,000 Fundable, major increases in

costs projected pending

outcome of investigations

#199701325 YKFP Operations & Maintenance $2,549,774 Fundable, projected future

costs are similar

#199506325 YKFP Monitoring & Evaluation $3,883,332 Fundable but see detailed

review of tasks included,

similar future costs projected

#199506425 Policy/Technical Involvement

(WDFW)

 $187,800 Fundable, very similar future

costs projected

#199705100 YKFP Yakima Side Channels $2,320,624* Fundable, small reduction in

future costs projected

#199803400 YKFP Safe Access into

Tributaries

$0, costs deferred New project, substantial

increase in expected costs

* $2.1 million of cost for acquisition of two properties.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

10

The total funds requested for FY02 are $11.8 million and future costs may increase

substantially depending on the ability to re-establish coho and fall chinook in the basin,

and supplement production of steelhead. Clearly this project alone has been, and will

continue to be, a major investment of BPA funds.

General Comments on the YKFP:

Overall, the ISRP was favorably impressed with the facilities visited, the staff and

procedures observed, and generally by the preparation of these proposals. A few of them

are very large and included many tasks, both past and proposed, that had to be

summarized and presented (detailed comments follow the general text). While the ISRP

review was favorably impressed with much of the YKFP accomplishments (as detailed

below) we are very concerned that the experimental design proposed to assess

supplementation of upper Yakima River spring chinook is inadequate.

Extensive monitoring and evaluation facilities and programs have been developed for the

project but much of the design work has been focused on evaluating two rearing

treatments with an objective of producing more “natural-like” spring chinook within a

hatchery environment. In our opinion, the type of rearing treatment is secondary to larger

questions about supplementation in the Basin, such as genetic change in new hatchery

stocks, relative fitness of hatchery populations versus wild populations, and how to assess

supplementation in the natural environment. We believe that a unique opportunity to

study these major questions could be lost if there is not immediate attention given to the

experimental design as presented. We provide more detailed comment on this issue

below. In terms of process and accountability, the region should carefully consider how

this situation developed, how to respond rapidly, and how to learn from this important

experiment while still working towards the goals of the YKFP.

After years of planning, design work, and consultations, the ISRP finds it unacceptable

that such an important experiment does not involve controls to maximize the information

gained from our investments. As presented, the experimental design will not test the

fundamental purpose of the YKFP (as quoted above), and define what we can learn and

apply elsewhere in the basin.

After years of design and planning, the Cle Elum Supplementation facility is complete

and producing spring chinook for supplementation of the naturally spawning stocks. The

first adult returns were Jack (Age-3 male) chinook in 2000. Male and female adults are

returning now in 2001. Extensive tagging programs have been designed to monitor

survival of juveniles, harvest by tag groups, adult returns to Roza Dam facilities (brood

stock collection and sorting); and to test the efficacy of semi-natural rearing to increase

the survival of hatchery-reared salmonids. Many detailed assessments will be conducted

on survival by release group, treatment type, phenotypic expression in the hatchery,

genetic monitoring of the juvenile production, and spawning behavior of hatchery and

wild parents. However, with the volume of information collected and the number of

studies that can be conducted, we are concerned that the detail has obscured the essential

questions about supplementation in this basin (and as identified in the fourth objective of

the YKFP as stated above).
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

11

For example, does hatchery rearing result in genetic divergence from the wild stock used

to establish the hatchery brood stock? If so, how rapidly can this occur and what are the

mechanisms? Do hatchery-reared fish used to supplement a natural population result in a

sustained growth in the natural population? Is the reproductive fitness of a hatcheryreared fish equal to that of a wild fish? Cle Elum Hatchery is a new facility designed for

supplementation of natural populations, but most hatcheries in the basin are older with

established stocks. The central debate concerning those hatcheries is the utility of their

fish for restoration of natural populations (do the genetic risks outweigh the increase in

stock size?). Further, while extensive tagging of production in Cle Elum allows

identification of hatchery fish from one brood year, production from these “hatchery” fish

can not be differentiated from wild production in the next generation. Genetic

monitoring of nuclear markers may allow assessment of parentage in small, closed

populations (such as the hatchery) but are not likely applicable in large open natural

populations that may also be responding to environmental variation.

To clarify our concerns, the review committee has prepared the figures in Boxes one and

two. Box 1 represents the parentage of chinook that maybe used in the Cle Elum facility.

In the initial generations, all brood stock will be from wild (W) parents and half of the

progeny will be reared under one of two treatment conditions (OCT vs. SNT, not

indicated in Box 1). All of the hatchery production will be coded-wire tagged so that first

generation hatchery returns can be excluded from Cle Elum brood stock (HxH adults

excluded from hatchery brood stock in Box 1). The importance of these hatchery fish is

that they will supplement the natural spawning population in the upper Yakima River.

However, once these hatchery fish begin mixing with the wild spring chinook the

parentage of fish used as the W spawners will become uncertain (the incidence of these

“mixed” parents will begin to increase from 2003 and onward). The yellow triangle and

text box in Box 1 is intended to represent this situation. The likelihood of selecting a

parent of mixed background will increase with the number of hatchery fish returning in

the brood years, in 2001 alone approximately one-third of the spring chinook adults

returning to Roza Dam were from hatchery production. If the hatchery is successful in

producing adults then the mixing rate will increase, and a high proportion of the returning

adults will have been produced from a small sample of the population (i.e., the

genetically effective population size of the stock will be much less than the number of

spawners observed). We emphasize that the ISRP is not speculating that there will

necessarily be a negative impact of supplementation ... the important issue is whether we

can assess supplementation under these conditions and design, and will the Basin learn

from our substantial investment in this experiment?
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

12

 Hatchery Wild

Hatchery

Wild

HxH

HxW WxW

WxH

At present, no pure Hatchery strain

in program; Hatchery background

only known for CWT releases from

current brood year.

Only truly known for first

generation parents, likelihood

decreases over time & as

supplementation increases.

Parentage actually unknown, can

only differentiate first generation

Hatchery production from other

adults; likelihood of hatchery

“experience” increases over time.

Female parent:

Males:

After the first year of Hatchery

supplementation ( spawners), the

shaded triangle includes the parental

background of chinook used as

“Wild” spawners in Cle Elum .

Question: How to

assess results of

supplementation

relative to pure H or

pure W stock?

Box 1:

To assess supplementation and to apply the Cle Elum experience more broadly in the

basin, the ISRP strongly recommends two fundamental additions to the study design

(Box 2):

ÿ the establishment of one or more isolated WxW sub-populations in the natural

environment (as wild controls); and

ÿ the development of pure HxH control lines within the Cle Elum facility.

The design proposed by the YKFP would assess supplementation by monitoring the

productivity and growth of the naturally spawning spring chinook population throughout

the upper Yakima River. These results, however, will be confounded with variation in

environmental conditions and do not truly assess supplementation, except for the net

effect of all spawners (hatchery produced or natural). If a wild sub-population could be

identified and not supplemented, then the experiment could at least compare trends in

production and productivity over time ... replicates of these sub-populations would of

course be ideal. The ISRP acknowledges that such a recommendation could be difficult

to monitor and maintain, however, the hatchery sub-population within Cle Elum

Hatchery can be established (although likely at some expense to the present rearing

capacity). We believe, though, that significant questions concerning domestication could

be investigated with associated benefits to other production programs in the basin. The
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

13

Basin is quickly losing the opportunity to investigate this important issue and this unique

opportunity should not be missed. We also note that discussion about investigating

domestication selection within the facility is being considered by the YKFP but that a

process has not be agreed upon (Task 3.c; project #199506325 YKFP monitoring and

evaluation).

Box 2: Supplementation assessment outline

Cle ElumHatchery:

New

Isolated

Hatchery

Pure

Strain(s):

OCT vs.

SNT

within

strains.

Supplementation:

Continue breeding

program as

proposed:

OCT vs. SNT

treatment in one

half of production

Natural populations

Isolated WxW subpopulation, no

supplementation, &

closed to Hatchery

immigration

Mixed Wild and

Hatchery spawning

sub-populations;

assess

supplementation

results in natural

environments.

Mature Adults

Smolt to adult production

Hatchery

strains are

closed to all

immigration

Since the first generation of hatchery production is returning to the basin in 2001, a

decision on this program is needed immediately. We would strongly recommend over

the next 2 to 3 years of returns that a few pure HxH lines be developed in the Cle Elum

Hatchery and that these lines then be closed to immigration from outside of these lines.

These lines could receive only the semi-natural rearing treatment (to save space) but

would be closely monitored to investigate genetic changes within the lines. If genetic

problems develop within a line then crossing between lines would be used to prolong the

comparisons. It is noteworthy that the Cle Elum Hatchery has been equipped with singlefamily rearing tanks that can be used for quantitative genetic investigations. However, no

proposals were received to use these tanks.

ISRP Advice : It is the ISRP’s advice that without these additions to the experimental

design there is a significant risk of not learning from this large-scale hatchery experiment.

It is also not evident how the YKFP defines success in the natural populations and when
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

14

supplementation should be stopped. For example, is there a guideline concerning what

portion of the naturally spawning population can be comprised of hatchery-produced

fish? Presumably, this decision will involve assessments of population growth rates over

time and the capacity of freshwater habitats but the process is not adequately described in

these proposals. The ISRP recommends that such criteria be developed and that

discussions between co-managers begin immediately to address them. Further, spring

chinook in the Naches and American rivers are not being supplemented, creating the

potential for a mixed stock fishery problem. How is this being addressed in harvest

plans?

YKFP Response to ISRP’s General Comments:

The response of the Yakama Nation to the ISRP’s general comments focused on the

above paragraph (ISRP Advice). Their comments addressed three issues identified

above: defining success of supplementation, commenting on the example of limiting the

number of hatchery-produced adults in the natural spawning population, and the potential

for a mixed-stock fishery problem. Unfortunately, we find the response to these issues

to be inadequate. The ISRP does not agree that the success of supplementation can be

defined by a definition of supplementation (RASP 1992 cited). Measuring success

requires specific measurable objectives, which would be based on the general

components of the definition. A definition could become a goal statement, but as

presented in the response it does not identify measurable objectives. Further, the

comments about when supplementation will be stopped are equally vague and without

objectives. The response about termination centered on three statements:

• “When it is clear that we will be unable to accomplish supplementation success

as defined by RASP (1992).

• When properly functioning habitat conditions have been restored.

• When the learning benefits of a supplementation research program are

completed.”

None of these termination statements involve measurable objectives and each actually

involves a high degree of subjectivity. The comments provided also introduce two

additional concerns: the “political climate around the issue of limiting hatchery-origin

fish on the spawning grounds” and the potential use of supplementation to adjust for

mixed-stock fishery problems. The former concern is a broader issue than this one

supplementation experiment but could threaten our ability to control an experimental

treatment. For example, if during initial generations in a new hatchery, the hatchery

returns overwhelm the number of wild fish ... what will we learn from comparing

hatchery fish with hatchery fish? This is an issue that the co-managers need to address

and prepare a response to. The latter concern re-introduces an old response ... uses of

more enhancement to correct an enhancement related problem. The response from the

Yakama Nation indicates that the managers have considered the mixed-stock fishery

problem and that they will monitor this issue.

Their response to comments concerning data management is adequate.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

15

Project ID: 199506325

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and Evaluation

Sponsor: YKFP

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $3,883,332

3YR Estimate: $12,914,597

Short Description: Monitors YKFP in terms of natural production, harvest, ecological and genetic

impacts, guides adaptive management within the project and provides detailed information on

supplementation to the region.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree if funded in part

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable in part. To briefly summarize the ISRP comments on the YKFP responses by tasks, the bolded

comments were originally from the ISRP review, and the text following is the current ISRP reply to the

YKFP responses provided.

OBJECTIVE ISRP COMMENT

1.Natural

Production

1a. Natural

Production &

Modeling:

YKFP managers should clarify why EDT data collection and modeling is not

described in more detail and/or included under a separate proposal. While the

response provided was extensive, it very definitely demonstrated why a more

comprehensive proposal and review for this activity is necessary in the future. The

ISRP identified numerous technical questions about the material received, but do not

wish to initiate another series of reviews and responses. Fundable

1b. Yakima Fall

chinook survival

study

This task is not adequately described, particularly if feasibility work has been

conducted. The response agreed with the ISRP comments and provided adequate

clarification. Fundable

1c. Spring

chinook microhabitat use

This task is likely to be largely descriptive but may also be useful in EDT

assessments... proceed given the modest cost. Fundable

1d. Spring

chinook PIT

tagging & CWT

application

Recommend continuation. Further, authors must also clarify the basis of the

tagging cost projected. The response noted the error in presentation and provided

adequate response. The ISRP noted though that the power to detect a 50% effect size

indicates that their procedures are going to be fairly insensitive to change. Whether this

is adequate depends on the management application. Fundable

1e. Roza PIT

tagging of W &

H spring chinook

Re-state and clarify the hypothesis ... as stated it is not clear how this hypothesis relates

to the task. Recommend continuation. Response provided a series of simple

hypotheses that were more correctly stated. Fundable

1f. Chandler

monitoring

Recommend continuation and refinement of smolt estimation procedures.

Adequate response. Fundable

1g. Accelerated

rearing of Fall

chinook

The response provided a correctly stated hypothesis and we agree with the additional

comments provided. Fundable

1h. Coho stock

and date of

release study

Clarify the present intent of this study. The response agreed that there had been an

error in the description of this project and provided adequate response. Fundable
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

16

1i. Spring

chinook juvenile

behavior

We place a lower priority on this work compared to other tasks. The brevity of the

ISRP comments obviously lead to a misunderstanding ... for this we apologize. Our

comment centered on identifying one behavioral trait that can be associated with a

change in overall survival. We certainly do not contest the issue of behavioral

differences between treatments, but what is the likelihood that one trait can be directly

associated with smolt-to-adult survival? This is particularly true when the comparisons

are made after release and adjustment of smolts to the riverine environment.

Consequently, as described, we continue to place a lower priority on this project. The

study design does not ensure that they will produce valuable results. They will likely be

chasing hypotheses. They need to describe an explicit set of hypotheses to test at the

onset of the experiment, these were not adequately presented. Not fundable.

1j. Spring

chinook

morphometric

and coloration

Comparison of body morphology and coloration in wild fish and hatchery fish reared

under OCT and SNT. As in task 1i. We place a lower priority on this work

compared to other tasks (but these costs are substantially less than for task 1i.). No

response. Fundable at low priority

1k. Smolt

physiology

Not considered in this proposal. No money requested for this task in this proposal.

1l. Adult

monitoring at

Prosser Dam

Recommend continuation. No additional comments. Fundable

1m. Adult

monitoring at

Roza and

Cowiche dams

Recommend continuation. No additional comments. Fundable

1n. Spawning

ground surveys

While the ISRP strongly supports this task, we question whether sufficient

resources are assigned to this task. This response is inadequate as the surveys as

described cannot answer the hypotheses (or issues) stated as examples. Further, the

response does not address other spring stocks, coho, or steelhead. This task is central

and critical to the YKFP but we continue to recommend that the YKFP review

these programs to ensure they provide the necessary data. Consideration of

whether indices and trends are adequate or more quantitative data are needed is

critical in this review. Fundable, but a report from these considerations is

recommended.

1o. Natural

spawning

observations

Response is adequate, presuming that this work is conducted. No associated budget was

requested.

1p. Spring

chinook residuals

& precocial study

Recommend completing this investigation. No further comment. Fundable
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

17

1q. Hatchery /

Wild

reproductive

success

Recommend proceeding with research on spring chinook.

We do not support the coho task as presently described.

The response acknowledged the need to clarify the coho portion of this project and

identified two activities: identification of spawning and acclimation sites, and

evaluation of reproductive success of introduced hatchery coho salmon. The initial

challenge for coho salmon is simply to get naturalized spawners back into the Yakima

system ... and initial returns have been encouraging. The study of how a “domesticated

hatchery” coho stock could re-adjust to natural conditions would be an interesting

investigation but the baseline for such a study should already have been collected (or

being so). The ISRP continues to recommend proceeding with the spring chinook work

(Fundable), and we continue to have many comments on the coho project (Not fundable

without further review). For example , the approach to use one large acclimation site

does not seem designed to match the life history and behavior of coho. The approach of

using numerous, small-scale, local, temporary acclimation facilities on tributaries is

better suited to coho life history patterns.

In this final review, we have two suggestions for the coho project: separate this

restoration activity into a separate project description so that the basis of the plan can be

more fully described and reviewed, and as part of the YKFP annual program review,

organize a comprehensive review of the coho restoration program. This program could

then be submitted to Council for review and funding.

1s. Scale analysis Response is adequate. Fundable

1t. Fish Health Not included in the budget, work coordinated with samples already available from

Chandler facility and analyzed by USFWS

1w. Sediment

impacts on

habitat

This task is poorly described. Authors must clarify before support is recommended.

The response notes that this program is basically a monitoring program ... but is the

data collected incorporated into any restoration programs. Once an area of sediment

problem is identified how is it addressed, or is it simply incorporated as a limiting factor

into the EDT model. Clarification of how this data will be used would strengthen this

project. The ISRP recommends proceeding with this task. Fundable

2. Harvest

2a. Out-of-Basin

monitoring

While there are no costs associated with this task, are there information needed by

investigators that they presently do not have? The response noted it is “difficult” to

obtain data but did not comment on whether there is data that is necessary and not

provided by outside agencies.

2b. In-basin

monitoring

The response is adequate but we have two comments: a 10% sampling rate is less than

conducted in many other fisheries but could be appropriate in these fisheries if the

marking rate is high, the need for incidental mortality information depends on the

management requirements. We would recommend that the number of tags being

recovered with a 10% sampling rate be reviewed to ensure that objectives are being

met, and that a program to examine incidental mortality rates be implemented. The

latter will soon be required under the total mortality management provision of the

Pacific Salmon Treaty. Fundable

3. Genetics

3a. DNA data

collection &

analysis

Recommend funding for analyses but reporting required before continued funding

is provided ... however we would expect this monitoring to continue beyond the

“first full cycle of adult returns” as suggested in the text. The response is adequate

but we note that no comment is provided on the publication of results, and that only 250

“returnees” will be sampled under this budget. How can this be an adequate sample

size to determine the pedigree data? We would strongly recommend a review of

sample allocation within this budget to ensure that the priority tasks are being

addressed first. Fundable, following review of sample allocation.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

18

3b. Stray

recovery ...

Recommend a preliminary investigation for the suggested budget.

A good response was provided for this task, the ISRP recommends proceeding.

Fundable

3c.

Domestication

study

As the ISRP has commented above, we believe there is an immediate need to

establish a pure hatchery stock within the Cle Elum facility in order to study

domestication and contrast with the supplementation groups currently being

reared in the facility. The response acknowledged the importance of this issue, and

the ISRP appreciated the detailed response. However, we feel the response

misrepresented an important point of the original review. Within the comments on

project 3c (Domestication), the ISRP recommended HxH control lines ... but in our

general comments on supplementation the ISRP strongly recommended both a HxH and

WxW comparisons. The ISRP in NOT recommending only a HxH line, nor the HS

design as stated. The response identified three concerns about domestication research:

direct measurement, disruption to supplementation effort, and limitations due to life

history. While direct comparison is the essence of our comments and is essential, none

of the other comments are really limitations to implementing what the ISRP

recommended. While we acknowledge that the WxW “line” will not be a fully

controlled experiment as the HxH line could be, we continue to recommend this as an

essential feature of the experimental design.

NOT FUNDABLE UNTIL AN ADEQUATE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

IS ACHIEVED THAT INCLUDES A HXH AND WXW CONTROL, OR

FULLY JUSTIFIES WHY NOT.

4. Ecological

Interactions

Most of these tasks could be considered individual research studies and may be

more thoroughly described in a separate project. Our concern was that such a brief

statement does not provide any insight into the activity or provide any technical basis

for review. We agree that potential impact of supplementation on non-target species is

an important issue and merits investigation ... but our task is to advise on the science

applied to assess these impacts. A project proposal must provide the basis for review.

Given the scope and costs of projects under Ecological Interactions, we suggest that one

comprehensive proposal would be more informative and appropriate for this process.

Fundable in concept but the methods must described in detail sufficient to allow for

scientific review.

4a. Avian

predation index

Recommend support for a few years, but the need for an on-going continual

program is uncertain. The response agreed with ISRP comments. Fundable

4b. Fish

predation index

The response agreed with ISRP comments and the YKFP has been developing plans to

“implement experimental management” of fish predators. Fundable

4c. Indirect

predation

We place a lower priority on this work compared to other tasks. The ISRP

comments about the budget stemmed from not fully understanding the procedures to be

used. Again this is an example of providing limited information on procedures due to

combining all activities into one large project. The response adequately clarified our

concerns and we recommend support. Fundable

4d. Competition /

Prey index

No further comments. Fundable

4e. NTTOC We do not have adequate information upon which to evaluate methods, impacts,

etc. Good response, Fundable.

4f. Pathogen

sampling

This seems to be an obvious source of concern in an otherwise comprehensive set of

tasks ... and should be clarified. Adequate response, Fundable.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

19

The ISRP is increasingly concerned about funding supplementation experiments if the project sponsors

have not fully thought about the design and evaluation of these programs. To us, these programs must, at

least, express:

a) a comprehensible and relevant statement of hypotheses that address key questions,

b) a thorough design capable of testing these hypotheses,

c) a technically acceptable assessment of the size of the effect that the design is capable of resolving,

d) a credible argument that the design is sufficient to test these hypotheses, and

e) a clear statement of how supplementation will be evaluated and how “success” or “failure” in the

experiment will be determined.

It is very difficult to make a concluding comment on a project as large and complex as the YKFP

Monitoring and Evaluation project. Many of the programs and monitoring sites are being well managed,

and we believe that important information can be gained from these programs and in this system. At

present, the YKFP has the potential to be the most comprehensive study of supplementation on the west

coast. Unfortunately, the issue of the experimental design and the fundamental need to assess

supplementation tends to overshadow these positive features. Since most of the M&E projects are related

to the supplementation program, should the ISRP recommend not funding any projects until an acceptable

experimental design is agreed and implemented? From a strictly scientific perspective this may be

appropriate, but the Basin already has a major investment in the Cle Elum facility and this study.

Consequently, we recommend tentative funding of this project (except for the tasks noted as not fundable in

the above table), with funding contingent upon an immediate resolution of the supplementation evaluation

design. The timeframe and review process should be determined by the responsible management and

funding agencies. If an agreed design is not achieved within the fiscal planning cycle, then it is certainly

possible to terminate production while maintaining some monitoring and evaluation programs.

CBFWA Review Comments:

CBFWA's review is consistent with the ISRP [preliminary] review and has been adequately addressed in

the response to the ISRP for these projects. The Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Program (YKFP) is a

collaborative, science-based resource management program. Funding of ongoing aspects should continue

until complete.

Project ID: 199701325

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Operations and Maintenance

Sponsor: YKFP

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $2,549,774

3YR Estimate: $8,567,865

Short Description: To implement and test supplementation-based measures in order to increase natural

production and harvest opportunities. Supplementation measures will be evaluated using a systematic,

experimental program. Test feasibility of coho reintroduction.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This proposal covers all the YKFP’s fish production activities and research facilities including:

operation of the Cle Elum Supplementation and Research facility (CESRF), the Prosser Fish facility, and

the Marion Drain Fish facility. The activities included are: brood stock collection, spawning, incubation,

rearing, and acclimation/release for fall and spring chinook, and coho salmon. While this proposal is more

limited in details provided, the tasks are clearly listed and costs are reasonable given their duration and

activities (with two exceptions noted below). Costs projected through 2006 are very similar, increasing

about 10% over this period.

Concerning technical content of the proposal, the ISRP note one statement we do not agree with.

Concerning brood stock spawning at the Cle Elum facility, the proposal states:
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

20

“CESRF utilizes a factorial mating (minimum 2x2 crosses) design to ensure genetic diversity.” (Section 2f,

page 6)

Such a design cannot ensure diversity; but as described during the tour, is intended to reduce the risk of

bottlenecks and reduce the rate of loss of genetic variation in the hatchery brood stock. The genetic

relatedness of the brood stock is unknown, so a breeding design can not ensure diversity (although it could

be maximized within the parent generation through genetic screening before mating). This criticism is

mainly semantic but we should avoid misleading expectations.

The two exceptions noted above are: the cost of operations for the Prosser Fish Facility (objective 1) and

the basis for the Indirect cost estimate of $450,546 in Part 1, section 8. The basis for the operational costs

are not provided for any of the three fish facilities in this proposal but the cost for the Prosser activities

seem large and it is unclear how this is separated from the costs included in the YKFP Monitoring and

Evaluation proposal. For example, both this proposal and the Monitoring and Evaluation proposal refer to

the coho acclimation ponds and include costs for operations. Contract managers should be aware of these

potential overlaps but as reviewers of the technical program we are unable to comment further on these

activities. The indirect costs in this proposal are large relative to the personnel costs ... over 50% of the

personnel costs compared to 19 to 20% in other proposals. This is again a task for a contract manager.

Project ID: 198811525

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) Design and Construction

Sponsor: YKFP

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $1,595,000

3YR Estimate: $8,286,000

Short Description: Design/Construction:

1. Nelson Springs Office and Research Facility

2. Interpretive Center

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree if funded in part

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable in part for FY02, and approve annually or at milestones after that.

For FY02 this proposal is limited to the replacement of YN office facilities ($1,375,000 in FY02) at Nelson

Springs (Parcel “B”) and construction of an Interpretative Center ($220,000 in FY02) at Cle Elum

Supplementation and Research facility. The proposal provides good justification for the replacement of

current offices at Nelson Springs and the ISRP advises that an Interpretative Center could provided

substantial educational value given the research programs at that facility. The new office facility would

provide secure housing of the YN research library, their Data Management Center, and presently eight staff

members.

Future allocations under this proposal are contingent on the results of feasibility studies for coho and fall

chinook restoration programs, and of the steelhead kelt re-conditioning program. The potential costs of

these future construction projects are substantial and can only really be considered following review of the

studies. Planning for the coho and fall chinook production programs were expected to begin in 2003 and

2004.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

21

Project ID: 198812025

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) Management

Sponsor: YKFP

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $1,262,548

3YR Estimate: $5,295,760

Short Description: This proposal supports the Yakama Nation's (YN) policy, management and

administrative activities related to YKFP operations in the Yakima and Klickitat River Subbasins,

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

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This proposal provides for all Yakama Nation management functions associated with the

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project in the Yakima and Klickitat sub-basins. The Yakama Nation serves as

the lead agency and is responsible for the implementation of programs and activities, in coordination with

the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Given the size and complexity of the YKFP, the project

requires significant management and administrative resources. This proposal includes management of

programs, data, and YN habitat planning activities, and includes the annual YKFP review of research

programs.

The ISRP found the proposal to be well organized and were impressed with staff during the site tour. The

ISRP notes, however, that the concern for a comprehensive experimental design for the supplementation

experiment does not reflect well on this aspect of the YKFP management. We are uncertain where and/or

why the problem of incomplete design developed but some review and consideration of this question is

very appropriate and recommended. The review committee recognizes that decisions in the YKFP are

made amongst the co-managers and technical advisory groups. By commenting in this project, we are

certainly not attributing fault to any one body.

Approximately one-half of the budget is for salary of 13.75 FTE, charged out at 19% benefits and 19.5%

indirect costs. Sub-contracting costs were not differentiated within task and could be more clearly

identified by work activity. Annual costs were projected to remain similar between 2002 and 2006.

Project ID: 199506425

Policy/Technical Involvement and Planning in the Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $187,800

3YR Estimate: $580,472

Short Description: Manage policy and technical oversight of the Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project via

the project's Policy Group and Scientific and Technical Advisory Group as delineated in the agreed-upon

project management structure.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Yakama Nation are comanagers of the YKFP. Project management is conducted through a policy group supported by a scientific

and technical advisory committee. These joint groups are responsible for ensuring that all YKFP activities

are implemented efficiently and effectively. This proposal describes WDFW participation in these comanager responsibilities. The proposal is well organized and seems limited to the advisory role described
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

22

in the text. The budget for FY02 is reduced from the forecasted level and remains very similar through

FY06 (less than a 10% increase).

The failure of the planning effort to produce a solid experimental design reflects poorly on this project.

Project ID: 199705100

Yakama Nation Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) Yakima Side Channels

Sponsor: YKFP

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $2,320,624

3YR Estimate: $6,281,719

Short Description: This project supports the Yakama Nation's (YN) activities related to YKFP habitat

improvement and acquisition activities in the Yakima Subbasin. The project goal is to protect and restore

off-channel rearing habitats in priority mainstem reaches.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: BPA Crediting? - High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The stated project goal is to protect and restore off-channel rearing habitats in priority mainstem

reaches, particularly those with good connectivity between the river channel and floodplain. Under current

conditions, much of the mainstem Yakima River is sharply compromised because of flow regulation and

diking that has removed large portions of the floodplain. The Yakama Nation has made significant

progress in arranging land acquisitions in recent years and has arranged significant cost sharing agreements

with the Nature Conservancy and NMFS ($700,000 for FY02). This proposal involves one Habitat

Biologist, costs associated with the purchase of two land parcels (460 acres), plus limited funds for

property maintenance and evaluation of fish and wildlife (95% of the BPA funds are for land acquisitions,

total funds $2.32 million in FY02). Projections for future years (through FY06) are for similar, but slightly

lower, costs. Future costs could change quickly if new opportunities were identified.

Project ID: 199803400

Yakama Nation Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) Reestablish Safe Access into Tributaries of the

Yakima Subbasin

Sponsor: YKFP

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $0

3YR Estimate: $860,000

Short Description: This proposal supports the Yakama Nation's (YN) activities related to YKFP habitat

improvement and acquisition activities in the Yakima Subbasin. The project rebuilds migratory passage

into historically productive tributary habitats.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable, but there is clearly need for a process to prioritize the numerous habitat restoration and purchase

proposals in this basin.

The goal of this proposal is to assist in the rebuilding of spring and fall chinook, coho, bull trout, and

steelhead populations in the Yakima River, by re-connecting productive tributary habitat that has been

cutoff from the mainstem. Many tributaries have artificial barriers near the confluence and flow has been

diverted into numerous irrigation channels. The tributaries identified in this proposal provided several

hundred miles of habitat (pre-development) for anadromous species and continue to have excellent rearing

potential in comparison with the mainstem habitats. Many of the tributaries still have healthy channel
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

23

sinuosity, width-to-depth ratios, and are more thermally benign during the winter. In contrast, the

mainstem is heavily regulated for irrigation, which has resulted in high flows during the summer and lower

flows during the winter. The specific tributaries identified in this proposal would reconnect over 100 miles

of rearing habitat (in 10 tributaries) with the mainstem Yakima River.

Project ID: 25022

YKFP Big Creek Passage & Screening

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $175,280

3YR Estimate: $205,280

Short Description: The project would provide fish passage over a concrete dam with a series of weirs in

combination with a short fishway, opening up 10 miles of habitat.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. From the response, it appears that streamflow availability will be adequate to restore the 10 miles

of Big Creek to anadromous fish production. It is also clear that there would be no deleterious impacts on

native resident fish stocks above the currently existing barrier. The response was persuasive in maintaining

the review panel's view that this looks like a relatively inexpensive project that deserves higher priority

(i.e., provide more fish production benefits per dollar) than most of the cohort of new fish-related Yakima

tributary proposals.

Project ID: 25025

YKFP -- Secure Salmonid Spawning and Rearing Habitat on the Upper Yakima River

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $2,300,000

3YR Estimate: $2,438,000

Short Description: Purchase of 370 acres of upper Yakima River wetlands through fee simple acquisition

to secure spawning and rearing habitat for salmonids.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: BPA Crediting? - High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable, but at a low priority. Would purchase three land parcels in upper Yakima basin: two of 80 acres

and 96 acres, part of wetland complexes with undefined anadromous fish use, and one parcel of 300 acres

that is valuable for bull trout habitat.

This is a minimal proposal. There is surprisingly little information on their importance to fish production.

There is no indication that these parcels rate high in subbasin priority. It is difficult to assess the level of

support from other agencies and groups. These small, relatively expensive parcels by themselves would be

higher priority if part of a coordinated "plan " but there is no indication of that at this point.

A related High Priority Proposal to acquire the two smaller parcels was previously reviewed by the ISRP

and ranked at the C level. Review comments included: "Although the proposal meets the solicitation’s

basic criteria, the proposal is inadequate and fails to provide adequate information on fish passage concerns

into the restored area, stock status, and expected benefits from the proposed work". Those comments

appear to remain appropriate for the current proposal.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

24

Project ID: 25023

Yakima-Klickitat Fisheries Project - Manastash Creek Fish Passage and Screening

Sponsor: YKFP - WDFW

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $0

3YR Estimate: $1,055,473

Short Description: The project will provide fish passage and screening for 5 irrigation diversions and will

enhance stream flow which is currently a limiting factor downstream of these diversions. This project could

restore access to approximately 30 miles of good habitat.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. Good argument is put forth in support of funding this effort now rather than deferring to the next

funding cycle. Because of uncertainties or limitations in future flow regimes and potential fish production,

this seems a medium priority, lower than the Big Creek project. The map was helpful. It is evident that

there would be no deleterious impacts on native resident fish stocks above the diversions.

Project ID: 25024

Yakima-Klickitat Fisheries Project - WILSON CREEK SNOWDEN PARCEL ACQUISITION

Sponsor: YKFP - WDFW

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $206,580

3YR Estimate: $206,580

Short Description: Proposal is to acquire a portion of Wilson Creek, and its associate floodplain at

Ellensburg, Washington, and perform riparian restoration activities.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: BPA Crediting? - High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable, but priority of this site is uncertain based on the materials provided. The response provided

relatively little new insight into possible fish and fishery benefits from this project, except to reinforce how

heavily altered the system is and how its remediation will be costly in terms of dollars and time. In the

absence of a clear understanding of the potential of this project, its limiting factors, and especially how it

fits into some overall plan for Wilson Creek, the reviewers feel they have little choice but to view this as

fundable but at a low priority. The map was helpful.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

25

Umatilla and Walla Walla Hatchery and Related Passage

Proposals

Project ID: 198343500

Operate and Maintain Umatilla Hatchery Satellite Facilities

Sponsor: CTUIR

Subbasin: Umatilla

2002 Request: $956,849

3YR Estimate: $3,948,549

Short Description: Acclimate juvenile salmon and steelhead prior to release in the Umatilla Basin.

Collect, hold, and spawn steelhead, coho, and chinook salmon and provide eggs to ODFW and other

hatcheries for incubation, rearing, and later release in the Umatilla Basin.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. (We have several suggestions relating to this proposal that are found in our comments on the

Hatchery Evaluation Proposal, project # 199000500.) This project functions as part of the Umatilla

Hatchery Project. There is an ongoing and probably increasing cost associated with O&M of these

facilities. While one might argue that acclimation in the satellite facilities may or may not accomplish much

in terms of producing a homing tendency of the adults to return to those satellite sites, the practicalities of

the matter are that there is insufficient water at the hatchery proper to rear the number of fish resulting from

the egg take, so some outside facilities are necessary. Monitoring and evaluation should be designed to

address specific questions raised by assumptions involved in this project. (See our comments on the

Hatchery monitoring and evaluation Proposal.)

Project ID: 198802200

Umatilla River Fish Passage Operations

Sponsor: CTUIR

Subbasin: Umatilla

2002 Request: $343,979

3YR Estimate: $1,084,394

Short Description: Increase survival of migrating juvenile and adult salmon and steelhead in the Umatilla

Basin by operating passage facilities, flow enhancement measures, trapping facilities, and transport

equipment to provide adequate passage conditions.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This proposal is a continuation of a 13-year project to operate fish passage facilities on the

Umatilla River. The proposal is well written and complete. This appears to have been a successful project

over a period of considerable evolution as fish populations have been progressively restored and water

returned to the river. The long-range objective is to phase out this project as river flows improve and

problems with in-river migration are dealt with.

The sponsors need to make the ties of how this fits with program’s Monitoring and evaluation project

199000501. They state on page 6 that they participate in the Umatilla Management and Monitoring and

Evaluation Oversite (sic) Committee. What we are looking for is a specific statement of how they work

closely with both monitoring and evaluation projects to assure that any data collected are shared with them.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

26

Project ID: 198903500

Umatilla Hatchery Operation and Maintenance

Sponsor: ODFW

Subbasin: Umatilla

2002 Request: $917,559

3YR Estimate: $2,833,809

Short Description: Restore Umatilla River chinook and steelhead fisheries and populations through

release of subyearling and yearling smolts produced at Umatilla Hatchery

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. See comments on project # 199000500.

Project ID: 199000501

Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project

Sponsor: CTUIR

Subbasin: Umatilla

2002 Request: $300,716

3YR Estimate: $910,716

Short Description: Monitor and evaluate natural spawning, rearing, migration, survival, age and growth

characteristics and life histories of adult salmon, steelhead, bull trout and mountain whitefish, and their

naturally produced progeny in the Umatilla River Basin.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree if funded in part

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable in part. The ISRP clearly requested results on trends in abundance from data collections and

offered several suggestions on experimental design and fish enumeration, but instead received details of

methods with occasional mention of findings. The response was inadequate. This is a monitoring project,

yet inadequate information was presented to show that benefits are accruing from past and present program

activities, to permit assessment of the present strategy, and to justify continued funding.

Work to meet Objectives 2 and 7 is fundable. Work under Objectives 1, 3, 5, and 6 must show that it is not

handicapped by the problem experienced with the Oregon coastal coho salmon monitoring as implemented

from the 1950’s to the 1990s, which was inadequate and gave inaccurate results. Oregon’s protocols were

changed to include random selection of sampling sites. If funded, protocols under this project must be

consistent with those in the Oregon Plan as being implemented in projects 199801600 and 25088.

Work under Objective 4 needs to use more rigorous and reliable methods than telephone surveys to

estimate harvest.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

27

Project ID: 200003900

Walla Walla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project

Sponsor: CTUIR

Subbasin: Walla Walla

2002 Request: $482,244

3YR Estimate: $1,470,244

Short Description: Monitor and evaluate natural spawning, rearing, migration, survival, age and growth

characteristics and life histories of adult salmon, steelhead, bull trout and mountain whitefish, and their

naturally produced progeny in the Walla Walla River Basin

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree if funded in part

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable in part: The response was not adequate. The project proposal identified accomplishments

beginning in 1998, including spawning surveys, age and growth, rearing densities, etc. Since this review is

of progress, reviewers would like to see what is happening in the system even if only a short data series is

available. The response did not include any data to facilitate such a review, or to justify continued funding.

Work to meet Objectives 2, 6, and 7 is fundable. Work under Objectives 1, 3, 4, and 5 must show that it is

not handicapped by the problem experienced with the Oregon coastal coho salmon monitoring as

implemented from the 1950’s to the 1990s, which was inadequate and gave inaccurate results. Oregon’s

protocols were changed to include random selection of sampling sites. If funded, protocols under this

project must be consistent with those in the Oregon Plan as being implemented in projects 199801600 and

25088.

Project ID: 199000500

Umatilla Fish Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation

Sponsor: ODFW

Subbasin: Umatilla

2002 Request: $626,178

3YR Estimate: $1,830,407

Short Description: Evaluate juvenile rearing, adult survival, stock life history, straying, fish health and

sport fishing and catch contribution for salmon and steelhead reared in oxygen supplemented and standard

raceways at Umatilla Hatchery.

ISRP Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Not fundable as stands. Fundable if a more detailed review of the project is provided that addresses the

ISRP questions. ODFW responded to all of the ISRP questions. It would also assist reviewers if the goals

were clearly stated based on a review of the available evidence and literature, presentation of available

data, and with well-defined experimental designs to assess the achievement of these goals. What is the

desired hatchery:wild ratio and why? Would wild adult returns remain constant (as they appear to have

been from 1992 to 1999), increase, decrease or otherwise be unaffected by hatchery fish presence compared

to controls? What is the number of replicates needed to answer this question? The monitoring should

continue but there must be more effort in either the presentation of the evaluation process or in

development of it. For example, an experiment to assess the contribution of hatchery fish to the natural

spawning of summer steelhead (a goal of this proposal) may require some or all of the information that is

proposed to be collected, but perhaps an alternative approach is available that addresses the numerical

(abundance and survival) and biological (morphology and genetics) response, and population fitness in the

longer term.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

28

Investigators in the Tucannon have concluded that supplementation does not work, and this study shows

that survival of hatchery fish relative to wild is low. The latter may also degrade natural production. How

do these results influence the goals and objectives of this program?

Project ID: 198805302

Design and Construct Umatilla Hatchery Supplement

Sponsor: CTUIR

Subbasin: Umatilla

2002 Request: $5,352,043

3YR Estimate: $5,352,043

Short Description: Build incubation/juvenile rearing capabilities at the existing South Fork Walla Walla

spring chinook adult holding and spawning facility to rear spring chinook for acclimation/release in the

Umatilla Basin.

ISRP Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Not Fundable: A scientifically sound justification was not given for construction of this facility to increase

hatchery fish production. It is a proposal to produce, as soon as possible, adult fish for harvest. The

sponsors view waters in the Umatilla Basin as fish production areas that cannot produce the desired harvest,

so a hatchery is needed. If the Umatilla Basin is to be viewed as a fish farming operation, there are few

technical questions concerning the proposal. Natural production of spring chinook salmon in the Umatilla

Basin is estimated by the sponsors to produce enough smolts to yield 2000 adults, but sponsors insist they

cannot replace themselves (no data presented; part of the reason they cannot replace themselves may be

excessive harvest – removal of 4000+1000 pre-spawners is equivalent to harvest [62%], a level that

probably is excessive for a natural population). The sponsors want to harvest 4000 adults. If these desires

are to be met, there is no choice but to add a large component of hatchery fish to the run. A kill of 5000

fish (4000 harvest, and 1000 other) would require improvement of conditions in the system to produce the

smolts needed for more than 10000 adults. That level of production would be needed to keep the kill below

50%, but even that level of harvest is likely excessive for these fish. Present productivity would need to be

increased by more than 5-fold. Given that need, it is likely that harvest of 4000 will require perpetual

addition of hatchery fish.

If, however, self-sustaining natural stocks of Umatilla salmonids are to be restored and protected, this

proposal is not fundable. The statement that "smolt-to-adult returns to the Umatilla River have been found

to be up to four times lower for spring chinook produced at Umatilla Hatchery compared to those produced

at Bonneville and Little White Salmon hatcheries” is a concern, since it is not clear that the proposed

construction will improve that situation. More review is required here, considering the cost, and that

review needs to be part of a basin-wide consideration and plan. The review must encompass risk and

uncertainty in hatchery plans, weighing both benefits and costs (including potential costs to wild

production).

We understand the goals are to achieve rebuilding of salmon populations to levels that would support

harvest, with specified levels of hatchery and natural production. The tribe is particularly interested in

restoring natural production. The proposal seems to reduce the issue to a simple matter of selecting a

desired mix of hatchery and natural components, whereas the issue is in fact complicated by many factors,

such as interactions of hatchery and naturally produced fish, relative survival rates of the two, effects of the

fishery on survival rates, and limitations of habitat.

The ISRP has repeatedly advised the use of temporary rearing facilities, but we have yet to see an

indication that this has been incorporated in any salmonid restoration plans. We understand BPA’s

reluctance to fund construction of facilities that are not designed for long-term use. On the other hand,

long-term use of hatchery facilities could be counterproductive in the context of a plan that focuses on

natural production.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

29

Population biology theory and existing experimental data suggest that hatchery fish can compromise

dynamics and structure of natural populations. Consequently, the scientific credibility of a program that

includes restoration and protection of wild stocks, must be guided by carefully designed experiments to

resolve the issues associated with these predictions and findings. Moreover, the 2000 Fish and Wildlife

Program stipulates that artificial production must be approached experimentally. Some unresolved

questions include: how will harvest be managed to prevent excess fish at the hatchery while at the same

time prevent overexploitation of the natural fish population? (Under the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program,

even “harvest hatcheries” must be located and operated in a manner that do not lead to adverse effects on

other stocks through excessive straying or excessive take of weak stocks in a mixed-stock fishery). What

exploitation rate can the wild fish sustain? If overexploitation of natural fish is permitted (to take

advantage of the hatchery fish production) thus requiring supplementation of the natural fish, how and by

how much does that compromise “fitness” of the population? A donor stock was used to initiate the run,

and fish from that run are taken into the hatchery program and subsequently used to supplement the natural

run. How is adaptation of these fish to conditions in the Umatilla Basin compromised by the continued

introduction of hatchery fish to the population?

CBFWA Review Comments:

Reviewers question the potential for interactions with listed steelhead. These issues will be addressed

through NWPPC processes.

Project ID: 200003800

Design and Construct NEOH Walla Walla Hatchery

Sponsor: CTUIR

Subbasin: Walla Walla

2002 Request: $2,850,000

3YR Estimate: $2,850,000

Short Description: Add incubation/juvenile rearing capabilities to the existing South Fork Walla Walla

adult holding/spawning facility to produce spring chinook salmon and acclimate summer steelhead for

release in the Walla Walla River Basin.

ISRP Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority (Three Step Process)

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Not Fundable: A scientifically sound justification was not given for construction of this facility to increase

hatchery fish production. It is a proposal to produce, as soon as possible, adult fish for harvest. Waters of

the Walla Walla Basin are viewed, by the sponsors, as a production area that cannot produce the desired

harvest, so a hatchery is needed. If the Walla Walla Basin is to be viewed as a fish farming operation, there

are few technical questions concerning the proposal. The sponsors have estimated that natural production

of spring chinook salmon in the Walla Walla Basin is enough smolts to return 3000 adults. Their goal is to

harvest 2000 of these fish. If these desires are to be met in the near-term, hatchery fish have to be added to

the run. A kill of 2000 (plus an unknown number of pre-spawn deaths) fish would require improvement of

conditions in the system to produce smolts needed for more than 4000 adults. That level of production

would be needed to keep the kill below 50%, a level that also may be excessive for these fish. Present

productivity would need to be increased by at least 50 percent. So addition of hatchery fish is needed to

meet the harvest goal until natural production can be sufficiently increased to meet the goal. The needed

increase via habitat improvement may be attainable, so temporary facilities could be used to produce the

smolts.

If, however, native stocks of Walla Walla salmonids are to be restored and protected, this proposal is not

fundable. The statement that harvest was open in 8 out of the last 12 years while natural spawning was

47% of the (poorly defined) goal suggests that harvest was not managed effectively. The natural production

goal was apparently based on available habitat, but there was no explanation of how either was calculated

by managers, or why and how habitat enhancement efforts have potentially doubled the adult production
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

30

from 1000 to 2000 adults. A strong argument for a proposal to support a harvest (and potential

overexploitation) that might further affect wild production, was not provided, particularly since the

potential of wild production in newly accessible and improved habitat seems the better option.

Population biology theory and existing experimental data suggest that hatchery fish can compromise

dynamics and structure of natural populations. Consequently, the scientific credibility of a program that

includes restoration and protection of wild stocks, must be guided by carefully designed experiments to

resolve the issues associated with these predictions and findings. Moreover, the 2000 Fish and Wildlife

Program stipulates that artificial production must be approached experimentally. How will harvest be

managed to prevent excess fish at the hatchery while at the same time prevent overexploitation of the

natural fish population? (Under the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program, even “harvest hatcheries” must be

located and operated in a manner that does not lead to adverse effects on other stocks through excessive

straying or excessive take of weak stocks in a mixed-stock fishery). What exploitation rate can the wild fish

sustain? If overexploitation of the natural fish is permitted so as to take advantage of the hatchery fish

production, thus requiring supplementation of the natural fish, how does that compromise “fitness” of the

population? How was the donor stock chosen? Apparently, an occasional salmon strays into the system.

Why haven’t these fish been successful spawners? Does the same fate await other donor fish? How will

adaptation of these fish to conditions in the Umatilla Basin be compromised by the continued introduction

of hatchery fish to the population? What is the expected interaction with steelhead?

We sense a difference in viewpoint between the state agencies and the tribe as to which alternative is

preferred. To some degree policy and technical issues impinge on one another with respect to a decision

whether or not to proceed with implementation of a full-scale hatchery program in the Walla Walla River.

We feel there should be a statement of agreement among the affected management entities prior to

implementation of a hatchery program, because there are potential long-term effects on what might be

obtained from natural production and harvest. Based on past experience the Council should be assured prior

to construction that the water supply at any facility it approves will be adequate.

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project should continue to move through the three-step process.

Project ID: 198902700

Power Repay Umatilla Basin Project

Sponsor: BPA

Subbasin: Umatilla

2002 Request: $1,750,000

3YR Estimate: $5,250,000

Short Description: Provide power or reimbursement of power costs to Bureau of Reclamation for Umatilla

Basin Project pumping plants that provide Columbia River water to irrigators in exchange for Umatilla

River water left instream.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The functions of this project for restoration of salmon were finally made clear. A complicated

program of water pumping that ensures flows for fish, and seems to have produced tangible benefits (see

monitoring and evaluation, 199000501). The pumping enhances upstream and downstream passage for

salmon and steelhead. The Subbasin Plan was particularly helpful in putting the Umatilla River projects in

a coherent context. The implementation of the program seems to have begun in 1976, mandated by

Congress, prior to the creation of the Power Planning Council. One is curious to know how the charges

came to be the responsibility of BPA. This is especially important because power costs are rising so

rapidly. When we first reviewed this project that annual cost was $450,000. It is now expected to exceed $1

million in the upcoming fiscal year.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

31

Project ID: 198343600

Umatilla Basin Fish Facilities Operation and Maintenance

Sponsor: Westland Irrigation District

Subbasin: Umatilla

2002 Request: $498,512

3YR Estimate: $1,571,587

Short Description: Provide Operations and Maintenance services of fish passage and satellite facilities in

the Umatilla Basin.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The site visits and presentations clearly indicated that benefits are accruing from these efforts.

The additional benefits of enumeration facilities at some sites (e.g., resistivity counters for adult migrants)

might be considered. Improvements elsewhere (e.g., flow increases due to habitat works) may lead to some

reductions in items such as fish hauling, thus cost saving. Includes operation of the fish pump at Three

Mile Dam, which is a tool that needs to be explored for future research on wild/hatchery interactions.

Several rotating drums are utilized for fish screening – perhaps horizontal screens would be better suited

for some areas. The evidence of a large component of strays (Deschutes?) should be a major concern.

Coordination with the monitoring and evaluation projects (Hatchery and Natural Production) on this subject

is essential.

CRP, CREP, Buffer, and No-till Proposals

The set of proposals grouped below includes several proposals from local and county soil and water

conservation districts (SWCDs) that ask for relatively modest amounts of financial support (~$70K) for an

additional FTE in order to support processing of requests for riparian buffers and habitat enhancement

through federal CRP programs (CRP, CREP, CCRP). While there exists a policy question in these projects

about the use of BPA funds to support basic personnel in other federal and state agencies, the cost

effectiveness of these projects for accelerating habitat restoration activities is impressive. A compelling

aspect of the program and the project request is the ability to leverage significant amounts of federal

support ($3-4 million) through the well-established CRP programs with a modest investment by BPA.

Habitat restoration under these programs has important stakeholder considerations. Landowners in the

middle Columbia area (like those in the upper Columbia and upper Snake) are cautious about their support

for and involvement in federal aid programs. This caution is often overcome by the personal relationship

of local fish, wildlife, and land managers with local landowners. Presently, most of the SWCD offices

appear to have more requests from local landowners for assistance with riparian buffer enhancement than

they can process in a timely manner. Enthusiasm for and participation in the program could be jeopardized

if the lag time between landowner request and project implementation is too great.

SWCDs should consider lumping their proposals. The basin has made a decision through the provincial

review process to approach project review and funding through a geographical hierarchical structure of

provinces and subbasins. The SWCDs should also adopt this approach within the NPPC-BPA funding

arena. If partitioning of funding to individual SWC districts is needed for cost accounting within the SWC

agency hierarchy, this can be accomplished within the budgeting portion of the proposal solicitation form

(Part 1).

What fails to emerge from the suite of presentations is an overview of the magnitude of the problem at the

subbasin level (the unit of management for fish and wildlife), the role of the SWCDs in addressing the

problem, and the progress that the SWCDs have made in resolving the problem. In future, these

relationships should be addressed by the SCWDs and the relevant resource agencies in the Council’s

subbasin planning process.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

32

Project ID: 25014

Establish Riparian Buffer Systems

Sponsor: Wasco SWCD

Subbasin: Deschutes

2002 Request: $67,119

3YR Estimate: $204,497

Short Description: Implement riparian buffer systems using cost share provided by USDA, State of

Oregon, and private landowners (RPA Action 152).

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

The project is fundable as proposed. A response was not requested by ISRP, however the response from the

proposers was appropriate and explained some of the limitations of programs within the Soil and Water

Conservation Districts. In particular, they pointed out the need for combining Federal funding with other

sources to implement protection of riparian systems in cases that do not fully meet Federal requirements.

See ISRP general comments on the set of SWCD proposals. The cost effectiveness of this and similar

projects for accelerating habitat restoration activities is impressive.

Project ID: 25080

Gilliam SWCD Riparian Buffers

Sponsor: Gilliam SWCD

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $75,086

3YR Estimate: $232,080

Short Description: Plan and implement riparian buffer program using USDA, Oregon and private

landowner costshare.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. See comments above for this set of SWCD proposals. The cost effectiveness of this and similar

projects for accelerating habitat restoration activities is impressive.

Project ID: 25073

Wheeler SWCD Riparian Buffer Planning and Implementation

Sponsor: Wheeler SWCD

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $75,086

3YR Estimate: $232,080

Short Description: This project will implement a riparian buffer program using cost share funding from

USDA, State of Oregon and private landowners.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. See comments above for this set of SWCD proposals. This proposal is to implement riparian

buffer systems in the Lower John Day subbasin. It includes 1 FTE to provide the technical planning support

to implement 60 riparian buffer system contracts on private lands under the USDA CRP and CREP.

Activities will include planting and fencing. Willing landowners have been identified but technical support

to help them develop conservation plans is missing. This project has excellent coordination with other
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

33

agencies and close ties to related projects. Another cost-effective project from a SWCD that will leverage

large amounts of USDA money for riparian restoration.

Project ID: 25006

Provide Coordination and Technical Assistance to Watershed Councils and Individuals in Sherman County,

Oregon

Sponsor: Sherman SWCD

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $95,670

3YR Estimate: $229,777

Short Description: One watershed council coordinator and two planner/designers will provide support to

five watershed councils in Sherman County. All future conservation projects will be based on watershed

plans and individual ranch plans developed by these positions.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This proposal from the Sherman County SWCD is another cost-effective SWCD proposal that

would provide a watershed coordinator and two planners for 5 watershed councils to help them implement

conservation projects with agricultural landowners. The predominance of agricultural use of the land means

that conservation plans must fit within the overall operating plan for the agricultural enterprise. The project

would produce resource management plans that would be implemented with cost-share funding from state

and federal agencies. The new FTE would replace services that were formerly contracted or provided inkind by NRCS. The proposal provides a convincing case for the need to fund these activities, and presents

good detail on objectives and methods. It also supports project 25050 (conversion to direct seed/no till

wheat agriculture). It is unclear if the planned personnel would also help landowners to prepare the

paperwork to establish CRP and CREP proposals for streamside buffers or to take upland cropland out of

production. Provisions should be in place to monitor and evaluate the success of these personnel.

Project ID: 199901000

Mitigate Effects of Runoff & Erosion on Salmonid Habitat in Pine Hollow and Jackknife

Sponsor: Sherman SWCD

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $41,980

3YR Estimate: $122,580

Short Description: Implement practices to reduce erosion and flooding, allowing natural recovery of

riparian vegetation and channel type in Pine Hollow and Jackknife Canyons. Future phases will focus on

replanting or protecting critical areas in the stream corridor.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fund with high priority. This is a companion proposal for Sherman County Water Conservation District

proposals #25050 and #25006. This proposal discusses the enrollment of the Mobley ranch in the CREP

program with two others that have initiated discussions for CREP. The CRP and CREP programs have

potentially high payoffs in the Columbia Basin.

The proposed work would recover riparian habitat in Pine Hollow watershed and Jackknife Canyon to slow

runoff during peak flows and increase summer flows. The watershed restoration activities were developed

cooperatively with landowners through a watershed council. There is excellent coordination and costsharing among agencies and other groups. The project will develop 6 range management plans and

implement sediment controls, upland pasture watering, pasture reseeding, brush control and fencing.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

34

Installations will be monitored. Water temperature will also be monitored, and annual spawning surveys

will be conducted. This is another low cost proposal from a SWCD that has the benefit of being developed

cooperatively with landowners. It looks extremely cost-effective.

Project ID: 25047

Morrow County Buffer Initiative

Sponsor: Morrow SWCD

Subbasin: Umatilla

2002 Request: $75,086

3YR Estimate: $232,080

Short Description: Implements riparian buffer program using cost share provided by USDA, State of

Oregon, and private landowners.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. See comments above for this set of SWCD proposals. The cost effectiveness of this and similar

projects for accelerating habitat restoration activities is impressive. The proposal is well prepared.

Protection of riparian areas is an important part of watershed restoration. It is troublesome, however, that

some potential participants in the program have declined. The reason offered was a lack of staff. However,

there was a proven record of accomplishment and an experienced planner. They should pick at least one

buffer site as a model or demonstration “show case” site. A hydro-geomorphological model of a fully

buffered system might prove instructive, particularly when 50 or 100-yr flood events are considered. This

seems like a worthwhile project to parlay one FTE of BPA funds to attain over $2 million in other funds.

The proposed work to foster riparian buffer protection and rehab is surely needed and in the regional plans.

Drumming up landowner interest is a big job and one that seems to have slipped recently. Riparian buffers

are good in their own right for fish and wildlife, but it would have been good to have the affected fish

species listed. Better recognition of other BPA-funded projects in the area would have been useful. There

is no M&E, but good riparian improvement may be judged without a specially funded study, or by using a

modeling approach and/or demonstration sites. We applaud the partnership approach.

Project ID: 25048

Accelerate the Application of Riparian Buffers in the Upper Deschutes Subbasin

Sponsor: Wy'East RC&D

Subbasin: Deschutes

2002 Request: $73,985

3YR Estimate: $218,619

Short Description: A project to apply riparian buffers to remove sediment and nutrients, stabilize stream

banks, improve fish habitat, provide food sources, nesting cover and shelter for fish and wildlife in riparian

ecosystem habitat in the Upper Deschutes Basin.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. See comments above for this set of SWCD proposals. The cost effectiveness of this and similar

projects for accelerating habitat restoration activities is impressive.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

35

Project ID: 25077

Umatilla County Conservation Buffer Project

Sponsor: Umatilla SWCD

Subbasin: Umatilla

2002 Request: $152,368

3YR Estimate: $470,954

Short Description: Implement buffer program using cost share provided by Confederated Tribes Umatilla

Indian Reservation, USDA, State of Oregon, and private landowners.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable with the set of proposals requesting FTE’s to help secure CRP, CREP funding for riparian buffer

projects on agricultural lands. However, the response did not adequately address the ISRP’s concerns.

These concerns apply to the set of riparian buffer projects. This project highlighted the need for a tie to a

watershed assessment, a monitoring plan for performance (implementation) and effectiveness monitoring,

as part of a basinwide effectiveness monitoring design.

Project ID: 199401807

Garfield County Sediment Reduction and Riparian Improvement Program

Sponsor: PCD

Subbasin: Mainstem Snake

2002 Request: $212,000

3YR Estimate: $642,500

Short Description: Coordinate, implement, and monitor conservation practices for the reduction of

sediment from the uplands of Garfield County and enhance habitat in the riparian zones of the streams to

improve water quality for Steelhead and Chinook Salmon.

ISRP Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Not fundable as stands. Fundable only if they include better justification of the biological benefits of

converting farmland production to no-till and a rigorous economic analysis.

This is an ongoing project (since 1993) that was first directed to conditions in the Pataha Basin, but is now

being expanded to entire Garfield County. Sponsors acknowledged that management of riparian areas and

uplands are key elements in determining the quality of streams for native fishes, a conclusion apparently

reached after site-specific engineered projects failed. The performance of these bio-engineered projects

should be documented so that others could benefit from their experience, especially since this approach is

being used as a guide for projects elsewhere.

The materials provided failed to address the key questions raised by reviewers. No data were presented to

review progress in increasing fishery or habitat benefits, but a review and copy of materials in agency

reports was used to justify the approach. The approach appears valid in reducing sediment, but the material

provided indicated sediment is delivered from catastrophic storm events, and we asked for evidence of

improvements in fish abundance and survival.

The proponents note that the market will dictate whether there is general acceptance of a no-till approach.

However, they then proceed to make a strong case for continuing the no-till project. Reviewers are left with

the uncertainty that even with full cooperation in no-till farming, sediment, habitat, and economic issues

will remain. Like project 25050, this is an experiment in the economics of alternate farming practices. The

larger question that both these projects should be helping to answer is “what is the most cost-effective way
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

36

to reduce sedimentation in streams?” No-till, riparian buffer strips, and CRP set-asides should all be

analyzed to address this question.

The project needs involvement of an experienced analyst to assess effectiveness of the work to date. The

primary need is to assess whether or not the program is causing significant reduction of sediment input to

streams and to important downstream spawning areas. If an improving trend can be described, what is the

distribution and abundance of acres needed to be under no-till to attain substrate goals in spawning areas?

No-till seems to be an effective means to reduce erosion, and that is good, but the goal here is to improve

conditions for fish.

No evidence is provided to convince skeptical reviewers, ranchers, and rate-payers that increasing

investment in this project is helping to increase fish abundance, or that it has any realistic chance of

significantly improving conditions for fish in the foreseeable future

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project benefits an ESU by reducing the amount of soil erosion on cropland, rangeland, and riparian

areas through conservation efforts. Project may address RPA 153. This project needs to be implemented

consistent with limiting factors and problem locations identified in subbasin summaries and eventually

subbasin planning to ensure fisheries benefits to target species. There needs to be oversight by the COTR

to insure that actions taken will benefit fish and wildlife.

Project ID: 25050

Provide Incentives to convert to direct seed/no-till farming in Sherman County, Oregon

Sponsor: Sherman SWCD

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $164,440

3YR Estimate: $481,320

Short Description: Sherman Co. SWCD will provide incentive for two of three crop years for farmers to

convert to no-till/direct seed farming. Conservation Plans will be written by SWCD or NRCS personnel.

No-till provides improvement in watershed hydrology & sedimentation.

ISRP Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Not fundable as stands. The response was inadequate on the role of the economist. Fundable only if an

agricultural economist is part of the research team and is responsible for the design and conduct of the

experiment regarding the economic viability of no-till farming.

Involvement of the NRCS economist is a good first step, but his involvement should not be limited to the

provision of spreadsheet software. As we said in our preliminary comments, the economic analysis should

be designed and conducted by a trained economist. Continuing involvement of an agricultural economist is

necessary to ensure that all economic aspects related to the costs of production – including the influence of

wheat prices in willingness to adopt new production methods – are appropriately recognized and analyzed.

The project as currently designed is not a rigorous analysis of the economic and biological benefits of

converting farming practices to no-till.

This project and project #199401807 are investigations into no-till farming. Project 199401807 is directed

at sediment reduction. Project 25050 aims to demonstrate the efficacy of no-till as a farming method based

on the premise that no-till is effective in reducing sediment delivery to streams. Both experiments are based

on the economics of alternate farming practices. The larger question that both these projects should be

helping to answer is “what is the most cost-effective way to reduce sedimentation in streams?” No-till,

riparian buffer strips, and CRP set-asides should all be analyzed to address this question. Understanding

which incentives are necessary to convert farming practices will depend on the outcome of the analysis.

The present county acreage cap on CRP should not prevent analysis of the relative efficiency of CRP as a
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

37

soil conservation tool. The information provided by conducting this analysis would be useful to those

making the decision about increasing the cap.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Due to the reviewers recommendation that an FTE should be funded through the USDA (Project 25006),

Objective 1 (P&D phase) could be jeopardized without the recommended USDA funding.

Project ID: 25099

Oregon CREP Improvement Project

Sponsor: OWEB

Subbasin: Mainstem Columbia

2002 Request: $433,725

3YR Estimate: $1,153,725

Short Description: This project provides outreach and technical assistance for the CREP program in

Oregon. The project will also develop a long-term easement option for the CREP Program.

ISRP Recommendation: Do Not Fund

CBFWA Recommendation: Do Not Fund

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Do Not Fund

ISRP Final Comments:

Do not fund. No response was warranted. Although, the project could offer real benefits, the proposal does

not provide enough information to evaluate its merits. It is not clear that merely developing the capacity to

offer long-term easements will benefit salmonid production. Developing greater public awareness and

providing outreach information may increase riparian restoration and protection if that information is a

limiting factor for involvement with CREP. That connection needed to be made in the proposal.

Bull Trout

Project ID: 199405400

The Population Structure of Bull Trout in the John Day River and Abundance of Bull Trout in Mill Creek.

Sponsor: ODFW

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $86,400

3YR Estimate: $259,300

Short Description: To aid in conservation efforts, assess the population structure of bull trout in the John

Day River subbasin, explore methods to monitor the abundance of bull trout in Mill Creek, and describe the

piscivorous nature of bull trout in various environments.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The response addressed the ISRP’s concerns very well.

CBFWA Review Comments:

The activities in this proposal are now Objectives 3, 6, 7, and 8 in ODFW's Project Number 199405400. In

previous years, these objectives were included in ODFW's 199405400.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

38

Project ID: 199405400

Bull Trout Abundance Monitoring in the Lower Deschutes River formerly "Bull Trout Genetics, Habitat

Needs, L.H. Etc. In Central And N.E. Oregon"

Sponsor: CTWSRO

Subbasin: Deschutes

2002 Request: $137,000

3YR Estimate: $371,000

Short Description: Methods for monitoring juvenile and adult abundance will be evaluated to determine

accurate and cost effective means of assessing the recovery of bull trout populations in the lower Deschutes

River.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. Adequate response. It is encouraging to note that the Oregon interagency monitoring committee

(see response to ISRP from 199801600) has this project under its purview because it is important that longterm sampling sites for this project be selected in cooperation with other projects (#s 25088,

25010,199801600). “Index sites” may be appropriate but the methods of data collection at them should be

compatible with those of basin-wide monitoring programs so that inferences can be drawn about changes

observed in the subbasin in the context of changes occurring in the larger region. (high priority)

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project now includes the proposed work submitted by the CTWSRO under the same project number as

well as Objective 4 of the original 25088 proposal (i.e., pre-ISRP review) that was submitted by ODFW.

ODFW and the CTWSRO will be cooperators on this project. The Resident Fish Caucus questions whether

it is BPA's responsibility to fund AFS protocol evaluations. The Resident Fish Caucus also indicated that

all ODFW bull trout proposals that will be submitted in the upcoming provinces should be grouped under

one project number (i.e., 199405400).

Project ID: 25053

Evaluate bull trout movements in the Tucannon and Lower Snake rivers

Sponsor: USFWS - IFRO

Subbasin: Mainstem Snake

2002 Request: $81,626

3YR Estimate: $477,491

Short Description: Determine spatial and temporal distribution of migratory bull trout in the Tucannon

River and Lower Snake River. Estimate “take” and identify passage limitations in the Snake River

resulting from the hydropower system.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This proposal is result of careful planning and thinking. Unfortunately, its success may be

limited by a lack of suitable fish for tagging. Can some arrangement be made to delay the project if a

useful number of fish are not available this year? Agency accounting procedures may preclude the

investigators from delaying project implementation for a year if the fish are not available.

The project intends to collect information that is not now available on bull trout movements.

This project is timely in that it would make use of telemetry equipment already set up by USGS at the

regional dams of interest (Snake R. dams). A few extra telemetry stations on the Tucannon would add to

the network that could remotely detect the tagged bull trout. Some additional manual tracking would be
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

39

needed where fixed monitors are not available. It seems like a good opportunity to learn more about the

potential long-range migrations of this still somewhat mysterious species.

They might consider acoustic tags for alternative marking schemes for some components (e.g., bull trout

utilization of deepwater habitats or reservoirs).

Project ID: 25012

Assessment of bull trout populations in the Yakima River watershed.

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $243,947

3YR Estimate: $558,947

Short Description: Assess the status of bull trout populations and collect baseline information necessary

for the development, implementation and recovery of bull trout inhabiting the Mid Columbia Recovery

Unit (i.e., Yakima subbasin).

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The response demonstrates good linkage with related bull trout projects in the region and

attached correspondence from the USFWS also confirms both good collaboration and the awareness that

Idaho assessment protocol will not automatically fit Washington streams. The response dealt satisfactorily

with the three basic ISRP concerns: use of best sampling protocol, radio-tracking detail, and genetic

inventory fish numbers. Presentation was well organized and the PI seemed familiar with local issues, as

well as bull trout literature and protocols.

CBFWA Review Comments:

The Resident Fish Caucus agrees that the proposed work would address existing data gaps (e.g.,

distribution, critical habitat, migration, etc.). The BPA COTR for WDFW's bull trout project in the

Columbia River Gorge Province suggested there needs to be coordination between the existing project and

this proposed work. As a result, the Resident Fish Caucus suggested the projects should be combined

under the same project number as has been recommended for ODFW's Project 199405400. The Resident

Fish Caucus suggested that the funding of the presence/absence objective should be funded by the USFWS.

Lamprey

The projects below form the overall investigation proposed for assessing the distribution and abundance

and identifying limiting factors in lamprey. These projects should be considered as one overall submission

as a comprehensive study on lamprey in the Columbia. Missing, however, is the coast-wide trend or

indicators of abundance - lamprey are near extinct in BC coastal streams on Vancouver Island. The decline

is not just a Columbia River issue. What is the temporal and spatial scale of this decline? Given that it is

likely large in geographic scale (matching the steelhead and salmon scenario?), it suggests that causes are

more related to oceanic conditions than those in freshwater. Do the declining trends most closely match

climatic changes or habitat alterations?

Nonetheless, deteriorating freshwater conditions (and previous harvest?) may have added insult to the

(ocean survival) injury, and, as in salmon recovery, perhaps this is where benefits (increases in productivity

and capacity) might be eventually expressed as increased adult return. Something of the recruitment

relationship would have to be known to determine the likely benefit of this suite of proposals, but there is

no indication of that recruitment knowledge in these proposals, or if it is even possible to obtain. Given

that these studies might provide a hint of the feasibility of understanding lamprey recruitment and limiting

factors (at least in freshwater), they should be supported. Some additional preliminary study is suggested.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

40

Some comparison with results in existing databases may be useful as a preliminary investigation. That

information, and what may be known of lamprey life history features of age, growth, survival and fecundity

might serve to form a preliminary model of recruitment (perhaps available from Great Lakes research on a

related species) to ascertain the key sensitive life stages. The information may also be useful in suggesting

where these studies should focus their efforts or towards development of hypotheses to test with lab and

pilot field studies. The same hypotheses proposed for salmon declines may apply. The lamprey declines

may not be directly related to the salmon declines as a food source, since they seem to be many hatchery

smolts available to make up the difference. These related projects should be collectively reviewed by other

lamprey biologists on the Pacific coast (e.g., Dr. Beamish) and in Ontario (e.g.,

http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/success-stories/co/lamprey-e.html). The ISRP acknowledges that the lamprey

investigators in the Columbia River basin have been coordinated through workshops and personal

interactions, activities that need to continue.

Project ID: 199402600

Pacific Lamprey Research and Restoration

Sponsor: CTUIR

Subbasin: Umatilla

2002 Request: $520,464

3YR Estimate: $1,530,464

Short Description: Implement and monitor Pacific lamprey restoration plan developed for the Umatilla

River. Assess ability of Pacific lampreys to detect migratory pheromone emitted by larvae, test for genetic

differences.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The proposal and response were scientifically adequate. The broad temporal and spatial scales of

lamprey decline are described, implicating habitat (fish ladder) problems as well as climate effects.

Evidence of considerable collaboration among lamprey projects is given by a recent workshop report. We

encourage this cooperative approach and joint outline of their goals and objectives, along with a list of

tasks that are designed to achieve them. Possible explanations for the decline should be specified as

alternative hypotheses. Tasks should then be specified that might lead to rejection or confirmation of the

particular hypothesis. For example, the text implies that construction and operation of the hydroelectric

system in the mainstem has led to reduction because of inability of lamprey to ascend the fish ladders. This

deserves to be tested by first-hand observation. There are observations reporting lamprey ascending dams

outside of fish ladders. As another example, the task of planting adult lamprey from other systems should

be viewed as a test of the hypothesis that the population is limited by the number of adult spawners. A

study following up on the planting should focus on observing the results of the plants, both with respect to

adult responses, and production of juveniles. Possible interactions with lamprey that are already present

should be anticipated and an attempt made to evaluate the effects. Perhaps the decline in abundance of

salmon is an alternative hypothesis that might explain the decline in abundance of lamprey. The tasks

required should be specified.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

41

Project ID: 200005200

Upstream migration of Pacific lampreys in the John Day River: behavior, timing, and habitat preferences

Sponsor: USGS/CRRL

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $271,956

3YR Estimate: $746,956

Short Description: Using radiotelemetry, we will determine behavior (timing and movement patterns) of

upstream migrating Pacific lampreys in the John Day River Basin. Overwintering and spawning habitats of

Pacific lampreys in the John Day River Basin will be characterized.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The response adequately discussed and addressed the ISRP’s concerns.

Project ID: 25007

Determine lamprey species composition, larval distribution and adult abundance in the Deschutes Subbasin

Sponsor: CTWSRO

Subbasin: Deschutes

2002 Request: $125,440

3YR Estimate: $341,382

Short Description: The project will determine lamprey species composition and larval distribution in the

Deschutes R. and tributaries. Adult abundance will be estimated in the Deschutes R.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The response was adequate. Habitat and water quality attributes must be measured by methods

that are compatible with regional monitoring and evaluation projects (e.g. #25010).

Project ID: 25101

Use of Mainstem Habitats by Juvenile Pacific Lamprey

Sponsor: PNNL

Subbasin: Mainstem Columbia

2002 Request: $89,238

3YR Estimate: $89,238

Short Description:

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The response adequately addressed the ISRP’s concerns. This is a short but well-prepared

proposal by a qualified group with the required expertise, experience and equipment. The proposal would

examine the use of the mainstem Columbia River by juvenile Pacific lamprey. They intend to conduct the

study in the Hanford Reach and in the tailrace of four Columbia and Snake River dams. The study is based

on a presumption that declining runs of lamprey were caused by degraded river conditions. They intend to

classify habitat types in these reaches, electrofish to find which habitat types lamprey are using, and use

these data to locate other such sites in the system. These data will be used to project where restoration

activities (undefined, and in need of clarification) may be useful.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

42

Hanford Reach Proposals

The Hanford Reach section of the mainstem Columbia River has apparently achieved the status of a curio

in the Basin, i.e., a piece of Nature between the dams and reservoirs. Unquestionably, the Hanford Reach

deserves recognition as the last large unimpounded section of mainstem river upstream of Bonneville Dam,

and large numbers of fall chinook salmon spawn there naturally. Scientifically though, we must ensure that

this “image” does not overtake the actual scientific knowledge of conditions in the Reach or turn

presumptions into facts. Functionally, the Hanford Reach section is not pristine, physically or biologically.

The seasonal, daily, and hourly hydrograph for the Hanford Reach is far from what it was before largescale regulation (especially by the large storage reservoirs in the upper Columbia and Snake), the frequency

of extreme flows is reduced, and the temperatures are modified. The Reach has many of the same

introduced species and invasives that have altered the community composition elsewhere in the Columbia,

a large volume of artificial production of fall chinook occurs within the Reach, and hatchery-reared fish

form a portion of the natural-spawning population.

During this review, the ISRP examined a set of nine proposals requesting a total of $2.3M in FY2002 for

research within the Hanford Reach area. Many of the proposals continued past activities or proposed site

or issue-specific projects, many of which seemed to be reasonable projects in their own right. But these

projects failed to provide an overview or point of reference, thus generating our concern, as expressed

above, that motivation for these projects and their prioritization should be justified by an explicit

assessment, rather than just coasting on an implicit reputation. Neither the Mainstem summary or the

proposals (most of them) provided an adequate context within which to evaluate them against what is

known or what the current management issues are. For example, the naturally spawning Hanford Reach

fall chinooks are regularly cited as an especially productive "wild" stock, but what is the technical basis of

this assertion? If we hold the Columbia River fall Bright chinook stock as the “standard” for recovery of

fall chinook, do we have an adequate technical basis for the assessment of natural production and who

conducts this work? Are hatchery fish identifiable from those produced naturally? Could the naturally

spawning component of the population actually be a demographic sink that persists only because it is

subsidized by the hatchery production? What is the utilization of the Reach by other salmonids? If

fundamental information gaps about the status of the naturally spawning stock are large, then the attention

to other narrower issues, such as refining more and more elaborate hydrographic models, GIS data bases, or

the behavior of fry may be misplaced. It is noteworthy, that one project does propose to examine how

“normative” the Hanford Reach actually is.

The review committee was consequently confronted with three concerns:

• a set of fragmented, or at least, seemingly independent proposals,

• a sense of incomplete background information with which to assess future work, and

• absence of a fundamental stock stock assessment for salmonids in the Reach, particularly for the

upriver brights

To complete this review we have assessed each proposal on its technical merits and requested additional

information when necessary. However, we would also recommend that the set of principal investigators

who have submitted these proposals also complete a synthesis that does establish context and presents a

rationale for these particular activities. The Subbasin summary for the Mainstem is a good starting point,

and should be completed and should be “signed-off” on by all managing agencies involved in this area.

Perhaps, this could be accomplished through the Council’s subbasin planning effort. Past work in the

Hanford Reach area has generated some excellent publications and useful results. By requesting this

summary, the committee expects that future work can build from past knowledge, that management and

data issues will be identified, and that we will learn from and apply these results to other areas of the

Columbia Basin.

The response to review stated that steps are being taken to form a consortium of researchers on the

Hanford Reach, to coordinate research, share information, and work jointly to develop future overview

statements, justification of priorities, and a reach-wide stock assessment. We hope this effort succeeds, and
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

43

we will expect to see successful products of these collegial intentions when the Hanford Reach projects

again come up for review.

Project ID: 199406900

Estimate production potential of fall chinook salmon in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River.

Sponsor: PNNL

Subbasin: Mainstem Columbia

2002 Request: $294,006

3YR Estimate: $867,597

Short Description: Develop a production potential estimate for fall chinook salmon in the Hanford Reach,

and evaluate whether the Hanford Reach functions as a healthy alluvial river.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable to complete in 3 years. The response was adequate and this is high priority to complete in this

timeframe and then move on.

The authors provided clear responses to the ISRP comments and were supportive of applying their methods

in other spawning areas of the basin, and completing their Hanford studies in the next 2 to 3 years. The

ISRP also noted their suggestion of forming a coordinating group for investigators working in the Hanford

Reach area.

The goal of this project is to estimate the spawning capacity of the Hanford Reach for fall chinook salmon.

The evaluation of the Reach will include investigating the role of interstitial flow pathways and groundwater/surface-water interactions in spawning site selection by fall chinook salmon. Standard spawning

habitat characteristics will be used to determine the locations of potential spawning sites and sediment

permeability of spawning substrate will be used to refine spawning area estimates. The investigators will

then use a hydraulic simulation model to extrapolate the potential redd densities to the entire Reach. The

sponsors of this research have been investigating related topics for several years and have a very strong

publication record of their work.

Project ID: 199701400

Evaluation of Juvenile Fall Chinook Stranding on the Hanford Reach

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Mainstem Columbia

2002 Request: $342,000

3YR Estimate: $769,000

Short Description: Estimate the number of rearing wild juvenile upriver bright fall chinook killed or

placed at risk in a 17 mile section of the Hanford Reach during the implementation period of the year 2002

Special Operations Plan for the Priest Rapids Project.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable, but the value of the project depends on whether there is still a question if the flow agreement is

effective. This is primarily a monitoring effort to determine stranding mortality under various flow levels.

The response was marginal. This proposal involves two more years of study followed by three years of

monitoring and evaluation (presumably to become ongoing). Past studies have provided an important

understanding of the effect of flow fluctuations and the mortality associated with stranding of fall chinook

juveniles. Mortality on fry is likely to be highest when they are very small and greatest in the nearshore

areas (<1m depth). In recent years the mortality rates in the study area had been relatively small (estimated

to be <2% of the chinook fry) but rates are expected to be higher during 2001. We support the continuation
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

44

of this study, but note the need to address the three limitations noted in the proposal (page 1, section 9) and

the need to begin applying flow dynamic models to predict mortality and to verify these results with field

data. Verification of the model is not likely to happen with the current level of coordination. These in-depth

sampling programs are not likely needed on an annual basis. Particular attention should be placed on

inspection of the remaining river area that has not been sampled (i.e., the 34 miles of Hanford Reach not

included in the study area).

CBFWA Review Comments:

Long term funding for monitoring for this project needs to be considered by Grant County PUD.

Project ID: 25052

Sex Reversal in Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Salmon

Sponsor: CRRL

Subbasin: Mainstem Columbia

2002 Request: $262,321

3YR Estimate: $415,359

Short Description: The project will determine if the prevalence of male specific genetic markers in

juvenile fall chinook salmon in the Hanford Reach is consistent with phenotype, and whether this evidence

of sexual disruption is associated with biomarkers of contaminant exposure.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The response adequately addressed the ISRP concern about potential duplication and

coordination with Innovative Proposal 22013.

This proposal addresses an important and disturbing phenomenon first brought to the ISRP’s attention

through the innovative proposal submission by Nagler, Dauble, and Thorgaard (#22013; Genetic sex of

chinook salmon in the Columbia River Basin; PI = Nagler). The ISRP recognized the sex reversal problem

in Hanford Reach fall Chinook as an important one, and recommended funding an initial examination of

the extent of this problem as one of the two highest priority projects in the recent Innovative Competition.

Council and BPA have approved funding for the innovative project.

The ISRP’s review comments on the Innovative Proposal 22013 are shown immediately below in italics.

This is an innovative proposal because it addresses a newly recognized critical uncertainty in the Hanford

Reach fall chinook stock and proposes to use a new genetic assay technique to do so. It is also a high

priority project as it addresses a critical question about population genetic structure in the Hanford Reach

and other chinook stocks.

The authors’ preliminary data show surprising evidence of sex-reversal (some genetic males are functional

females) in Hanford-Reach-spawning wild chinook, apparently the result of some environmental insult

(e.g., EDC’s, exposure to pesticides). The data are intriguing and worrisome. Half the offspring of the sexreversed fish will be normal males, but half will be YY males, capable of producing only sons,

disproportionately increasing the ratio of males to females in the next generation, an accelerating increase

if the sex-reversal continues in each generation. The effect would be a decreasing proportion of normal

females and decreasing reproductive fitness, a serious barrier to recovery. It’s clearly important to find out

if other stocks of wild spawning chinook are affected, and it’s important to find out if YY males are indeed

present. The region needs to know the extent of the genetic sex reversal phenomenon.

Many of the positive comments and biological concerns stated in the review comments above also apply to

this proposal (#25052). This proposal, while not directly linked to Project 22013, is related to it. The

studies complement each other. The similarity between these two studies is that they will both examine

juvenile fall chinook salmon from the Hanford Reach as a consequence of a reported incidence of a male-
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

45

specific genetic marker in adult females from this population (Nagler et al. 2001). The funded project

(22013) will look for incidence of a YY-genotype in wild juveniles over two seasons, while this proposal

will examine the levels of biomarkers, phenotype and genotype, and incidence of intersex in juveniles.

The innovative proposal 22013 is restricted in scope as compared to this proposal, most likely to fit the

funding and timeframe criteria of the innovative solicitation. The focus of the innovative proposal was to

gather genetic and phenotypic data from Hanford Reach juvenile fall chinook to further corroborate or

refute the preliminary observations of high levels of sex reversal and intersex individuals. That proposal

infers, but does not outline a strategy to examine, that the genetic results could be related to higher levels of

biocontamination from pollutants. This proposal (25052), in many ways, is the next logical step beyond the

funded project 22013.

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project would compliment the ongoing project that was funded through the innovative category. Due

to the limitations in the innovative funding category, the other study is not able to address the juvenile

component of the sex reversal phenomenon. There are opportunities for cost savings of approximately

$56k on this project through coordination with existing sampling programs for PIT tagged fish. Funding

for this project should be delayed until the prior project is completed, therefore the budget has been

adjusted to begin in FY03.

Project ID: 25079

Integration and Construction of a GIS Based 2-Dimensional Hydraulic/Habitat Model for 51 miles of

Hanford Reach and Site of the Columbia River

Sponsor: USFWS

Subbasin: Mainstem Columbia

2002 Request: $295,786

3YR Estimate: $550,786

Short Description: Integration and Construction of a GIS Database and 2-Dimensional Hydraulic/Habitat

Model for 51 miles of the Hanford Reach and Hanford Site of the Columbia River

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable technically and this could provide a valuable product, but as noted in the preliminary review, the

prospects for success is vulnerable to many “people issues” that are difficult to predict with the information

provided.

The response indicated that a working group would "meet periodically" and may be a formal or informal

group. Access to the product is clearly described. Use of the product by the relevant community is not

adequately addressed. The response notes that information from a similar tool for a river segment

downstream from Bonneville Dam has been "regularly accessed and used".

More specific information is needed about the obligations and commitments of the working group. The

amount of use to be expected by the relevant community should be estimated based on quantified use for

similar products elsewhere.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

46

Project ID: 25045

Determine effects of water level-induced changes in rearing habitat on the survival of juvenile fall chinook

salmon.

Sponsor: USGS

Subbasin: Mainstem Columbia

2002 Request: $192,977

3YR Estimate: $548,931

Short Description: Describe the response of premigrant fall chinook salmon to water level-induced

changes in their rearing habitat in terms of their habitat use, movement behavior, and survival.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The response addresses the ISRP comments. This project is innovative, but somewhat risky with

the use of untested technology. This proposal might be justifiable just on methodological grounds to test

whether the use of PIT tags can be expanded to collect additional important monitoring information. This

is a major potential benefit from this project. At the Hanford Reach level, this project complements the

ongoing stranding study, but the immediate management application of project 25045 is likely of lower

priority. The primary goal of this project is to describe the response of pre-migrant fall chinook salmon in

the Hanford Reach to water level-induced changes in their rearing habitat in terms of their habitat use,

movement behavior, and survival. The proposal apparently differs from other studies of fry stranding by

examining the behavior mechanisms involved and studying responses at a much finer or “local” level than

in the past. The study might provide insight into a problem found in many locations throughout the

hydrosystem. It could provide better information on how quickly fry can adjust to habitat changes and help

define preferred habitats, etc.

Project ID: 25070

The Application of Geophysics to Better Define Fall Chinook Salmon Spawning Habitat Use in the

Hanford Reach, Columbia River.

Sponsor: Golder Assoc., PNNL

Subbasin: Mainstem Columbia

2002 Request: $113,532

3YR Estimate: $240,572

Short Description: Assess the use of efficient state of the art geophysical technology to better define fall

chinook spawning habitat use based upon geomorphological and hyporehic factors.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable to complete in 3 years as proposed. As proposed in the response the study protocol should be

redesigned to include additional sites before funding, because a too limited number of sample sites could

lead to strictly local characterizations that have no relevance to other sites or broader scale application.

Their previous work indicates that a large percentage (80%) of the distribution of spawning clusters in the

Hanford Reach can be explained by small-scale characteristics such as water velocity, depth and lateral

slope of river bottom. The proposed work is speculative in that its ability to improve the estimation of

carrying capacity of salmon spawning depends on the establishment of a relationship between subsurface

lithology and ground/surface water interactions. This is good science but the priority of the project for

management application is likely low or medium. The method does have potential for basinwide

application in defining chinook salmon spawning in large tributaries.

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project would provide very interesting information and has been well developed. However, it is

unclear how the results of this study would influence management actions in this area.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

47

Project ID: 25038

Effects of Hydropower Operations on Fall Chinook Spawning Activity

Sponsor: PNNL

Subbasin: Mainstem Columbia

2002 Request: $139,338

3YR Estimate: $516,430

Short Description: Assess the relationship between hydropower project operations and spawning activity

of fall chinook salmon in dam tailrace areas. Develop a data set of 24 h/day spawning activity to be

regressed against daylight and project discharge data.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable technically, but the need for this project is not justified except at a low priority. Benefits to the

fish are not adequately demonstrated.

Project ID: 25035

Evaluate adult fall chinook salmon fallback at Priest Rapids Dam, Columbia River

Sponsor: PNNL and WDFW

Subbasin: Mainstem Columbia

2002 Request: $603,065

3YR Estimate: $1,344,108

Short Description: Improve estimates of Hanford Reach fall chinook salmon escapement by assessing the

rate, route, fate, and energy-use of adult fall chinook salmon that fall back at Priest Rapids Dam.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree if funded in part

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable in part – fund objective 1 only. The response adequately documents that the discrepancy in

escapement estimates and the rate of fallback were both unusually large in 2000. This warrants continued

monitoring both to rectify escapement estimates and to attempt to determine whether the fallback is related

to operations at Priest Rapids hatchery. The significance of fallback, and the interpretation of escapement

estimates, cannot be properly evaluated until a comprehensive stock assessment is carried out, which would

include quantification of the relative roles of hatchery and natural production for this stock. Until this is

done investment in the energetics component of the project (objective 2) is not warranted, especially since

stock origin at present would not be known for the individual instrumented fish.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

48

Project ID: 25037

Evaluation of the effects of American shad on upstream migration of anadromous fishes at Priest Rapids

Dam

Sponsor: PNNL

Subbasin: Mainstem Columbia

2002 Request: $43,464

3YR Estimate: $297,910

Short Description: The primary goal of this study is to determine whether the non-indigenous American

shad attempting to pass Priest Rapids Dam negatively impact upstream passage of adult anadromous fishes.

Methods to reduce possible impacts will also be explored.

ISRP Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Do Not Fund

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Do Not Fund

ISRP Final Comments:

Not fundable. Although the topic of shad interactions with salmon is potentially a key issue in salmon

recovery, a response was not received that attempted to address the ISRP concerns.

The ISRP concerns included:

How is this project integrated with other Priest Rapids and Hanford proposals? The proposal is limited in

detail and needs to provide more justification.

The proposal has four tasks. The first task listed boils down to a determination of whether there is a

problem. The second looks for details about how shad operate to create the problem, if any. The third is a

basic study of shad behavior in the ladder at Priest Rapids Dam. The fourth attempts to solve the problem –

if any – by application of sound, to which it is hoped, shad will respond by behaving more acceptably

toward chinook and steelhead in the ladders – if that proves to be necessary. .

What facts are now available? What is the timing of shad arrival and concentrations versus the fall Brights?

Based on past radio-tagging of chinook what is the “usual” time in the fishway versus time with shad

present? Shad do not readily pass the east bank ladder at Priest Rapids Dam, which is the one principally

used by anadromous fishes. They do enter the ladder. One ought to ask “Why do shad clog the ladder at

Priest Rapids Dam?” The answer is rather obvious to one familiar with literature on American shad beyond

Washington and Oregon. Shad are blocked at the upper end of the ladder by the need to pass under a

concrete baffle that stretches across the ladder. Shad have been observed to be reluctant to pass even under

bridges. They are delicate creatures. That the ladder at Priest Rapids is a barrier to shad is apparent from the

fact that few, if any, have been counted in the ladders upstream. The idea of repelling them with sound is

not compelling. A number of years ago, the agencies requested that Grant PUD improve passage for shad at

Priest Rapids Dam, but Grant PUD demurred, arguing that to do so might simply add to the problem by

opening up more spawning and rearing area upstream for shad, resulting in even more shad to clog the

ladder. Grant requested that the agencies prepare an EIS, which ended the issue.

 The proposal notes that Bjornn has data over a number of years that could be used to correlate success of

chinook passage with shad counts at the dam. These data should be analyzed for the information they might

provide on the questions posed in this proposal, before investing in more data collection.

As for task four, even if the sound were found to repel shad, would not the problem still exist at the point

where sound might be detected by shad? Thinking along those lines, how about simply installing an

overhead barrier at the entrances to the ladder like the one now present at the upper end of the ladder. This

also may simply move the problem somewhere else.

There is a clear shad management/policy issue involved here. Should shad be allowed to continue to

colonize up-river portions of the mainstem? How the fishway problem is dealt with will depend on such
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

49

policy decisions. On the positive side though, if shad passage is controlled by various methods, could a

means to control shad numbers in the mainstem above Bonneville be implemented?

CBFWA Review Comments:

It is disappointing that the project sponsor chose not to respond to the ISRP. It is not clear why the

extensive behavior evaluation is necessary prior to implementing actions to prevent shad from entering the

fish ladder at Priest Rapids Dam.

ISRP and CBFWA Agree: Fundable through the Action Plan

Process

Project ID: 25054

Increase Naches River In-stream Flows by Purchasing Wapatox Hydroelectric Project

Sponsor: YN

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $3,500,000

3YR Estimate: $3,500,000

Short Description: Cost share with Bureau of Reclamation to purchase and retire PacifiCorp's Wapatox

Power Plant to benefit salmon and steelhead by increasing instream flows and enhance spawning and

rearing habitat in the Naches River.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable in the Columbia Plateau Provincial and the Action Plan reviews. The response makes the point

that Wapatox is one part of a large program to significantly restore a large system whose ability to function

naturally has been heavily reduced by a concerted human effort over a long period of time. As reviewers

commented during the High Priority review process in which the project was ranked B, the project would

benefit fish in the portion of the river that is bypassed by the canal which at times is dry or otherwise

inaccessible to spring chinook, steelhead and coho, as well as bull trout. Increased flow will lead to

reconnection of the lower Naches River with upstream tributaries such as the American River.

As requested, the response attempts to clearly and quantitatively address benefits to fish. The reviewers

were convinced that this project offers substantial and immediate gains for salmon and steelhead. The

monitoring and evaluation component of the project was not adequately described in the response, perhaps

this could be worked out by the Council and BPA in the Columbia Plateau project selection process.

There are obvious policy issues of who should fund this that extend beyond the ISRP purview.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

50

Project ID: 25031

Naches River Water Treatment Plant Intake Screening Project.

Sponsor: City of Yakima

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $1,657,500

3YR Estimate: $1,657,500

Short Description: Screen City of Yakima's Naches Water Treatment Plant intake to eliminate mortality of

ESA listed and non-listed salmonids at this location.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This project will be needed if the retirement of Wapatox Dam occurs (proposed at this time, but

not a certainty). Action will be taken by late fall 2002 regardless of funding decision. This is an extensive

engineering proposal. It provides abundant linkages to the various regional planning documents, as well as

to the FWP. It does not describe the magnitude of the juvenile or adult fish entrainment that occurs in its

present design both under current operation and under operation if Wapatox Dam was retired. Thus, it is

hard to judge the magnitude of the biological benefits of funding the project. The diversion is for 50 cfs.

This project was originally submitted under the BPA FY2001 High Priority Proposal solicitation (project #

23044) and received a Category B rating from the ISRP and an A rating from CBFWA. The ISRP raised

concerns that the project inadequately specified benefits to fish. PIs responded to this concern by noting

that although mortality of salmonids due to entrainment into the WTP intake system has not been

quantified, complete exclusion of fish from the intake system will benefit both listed and non-listed

salmonids as well as resident fish. While this would clearly be true, it makes judging the magnitude of the

problem and the magnitude of the potential biological benefits difficult to assess.

Proposed budget is $1.9 million, but speakers (Paul Wagner) indicated that the project might be done for as

little as $1 million. PI’s do not have alternative funding avenues identified.

In the High Priority review, both the ISRP and CBFWA indicated that the proposal raised "in lieu"

questions. The PI’s most recent understanding was that upon NWPPC staff review, funding of this project

was determined to be consistent with BPA obligations. Due to budgetary constraints, this project did not

receive funding under the FY01 High Priority Proposal solicitation and is therefore being resubmitted

under the current solicitation.

CBFWA Review Comments:

M&E will be performed by WDFW screen shop for screen compliance. Technical criterion number 7 is not

applicable for this project. This is a good project that will provide benefits in the basin. However, for the

cost versus benefits of this project, mitigation funding in the Fish and Wildlife Program could be better

spent in other projects. The in-lieu question surrounding this project also raises some concerns. CBFWA

supports funding this project through the spill mitigation action plan as recommended by the NWPPC.

This project was identified as in-lieu by BPA during the Early Action Plan project review process.

Funding should only be provided for installation of fish screens. All other activities within this proposal

(i.e.. channel redesign, intake modification) should be funded by the City of Yakima.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

51

Project ID: 25017

Fabricate and Install New Huntsville Mill Fish Screen

Sponsor: WDFW, YSS

Subbasin: Walla Walla

2002 Request: $102,217

3YR Estimate: $232,717

Short Description: WDFW, YSS proposes to fabricate and install a new fish screen facility (12 cfs) at the

existing Huntsville Mill location within the Touchet River Basin. The new screen facility will comply with

current state and federal criteria for fish protection.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This is a carefully prepared proposal. It includes a good background to describe the problem

and, based on information from elsewhere, describes its likely benefit. The proposal includes a monitoring

element to verify that small fish are in fact prevented entry to the irrigation withdrawal system. The need

has been demonstrated and prioritized.

Project ID: 25015

Emergency Flow Augmentation for Buck Hollow

Sponsor: Wasco SWCD

Subbasin: Deschutes

2002 Request: $29,886

3YR Estimate: $29,886

Short Description: Augment stream flow in Buck Hollow Creek during 2001 with 1-1.5 cfs from

headwater well

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This project is time critical for summer 2001. The project will address a limiting factor that

presents a critical and immediate need to protect steelhead redds. It is a needed project, with good

justification and a very low budget. Implementing the project should also create additional good will with a

cooperative local landowner.

Modest cost of $30K with cost share to reimburse landowner for direct out of pocket costs for short term 1-

1.5 cfs from private irrigation well near headwaters beginning immediately. Dry conditions elsewhere are

apparently forcing fish into Buck Hollow and Bakeoven. Late season flows at mouth have exceeded

minimum goal of 5 cfs. Efforts to protect the water have apparently been researched by Oregon Water

Resources Department personnel. Flows and temperature would be monitored. The monitoring should be

coordinated with project #25010 from ODEQ? Bakeoven Creek (also with record run of steelhead) is a

control with no augmentation.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

52

ISRP and CBFWA Agree: ISRP Fundable and CBFWA High

Priority

Deschutes

Project ID: 25010

Regional Stream Conditions and Stressor Evaluation

Sponsor: ODEQ

Subbasin: Deschutes

2002 Request: $180,000

3YR Estimate: $540,000

Short Description: Evaluate status and trends of key factors limiting listed species within subbasins by

developing a statistically based model to characterize baseline conditions and identify conditions at

regional reference sites.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable, high priority. There are other new proposals, e.g. #25088, that if funded should be coordinated

with this project under the overall Oregon Plan for Salmon & Watersheds (OPSW) monitoring studies. The

ISRP assumes that these proposals were submitted independently of each other and in fact that proponents

may not have been aware of each others’ proposals.

The proponents have plans to coordinate sample design and combine data from two projects: Salmonid

Habitat and Population Monitoring (Project ID 199801600) and Bull Trout (Project ID 199405400).

Council should ensure that all funded projects for monitoring fish and aquatic habitat in Oregon are

coordinated under the Oregon Plan for Salmon &Watersheds monitoring. In so far as possible, the Council

should also influence projects from the State of Washington to use monitoring procedures that are

compatible with the Oregon Plan. The protocols of this project should also be consistent with project 25069

with regard to water quality parameters and measurement methods.

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project would address NMFS RPA 154 as well as provide an important component to Oregon's

monitoring plan to evaluate fish and wildlife for federal bi-op programs. Reviewers suggest that some of

the data that would be collected through this project may exist and recommend that existing data should be

reviewed to avoid duplicative actions. Although this project is coordinated with 199801600, additional

coordination needs to occur with 25069, and 25088b. Funding should be delayed until coordination will

ensure data overlaps will be minimized. There is a strong divide within the fish and wildlife co-managers

regarding the adequacy of the existing monitoring and evaluation programs in particular subbasins. All

monitoring projects in these basins need to be evaluated to determine whether there is or is not significant

overlap in the monitoring programs. The CTUIR strongly believes that existing M&E in the Umatilla

subbasin is adequate and additional monitoring in this subbasin will be redundant. Coordination within

these subbasins among the fish and wildlife co-managers should be a pre-requirement for funding this

project. In general, the tribes believe that adequate coordination has not occurred to justify funding this

project at this time. CBFWA can only provide consensus support for moving forward with this project

where data gaps occur in the John Day subbasin. The remaining subbasins would be considered

Recommended Action.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

53

Project ID: 25074

Deschutes Water Exchange

Sponsor: DRC

Subbasin: Deschutes

2002 Request: $1,000,000

3YR Estimate: $2,835,100

Short Description: Develop an active water market in the Deschutes Basin to reallocate water cost

effectively from out-of-stream to instream use in order to improve stream flows and water quality.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This proposal uses the opportunity to develop markets for water rights as a means to converting

water to instream flow use. The project is directed toward the goal of reallocating water in the Deschutes

Basin from out-of-stream to instream use to improve stream flows and water quality. Trout Creek is the

only major tributary with private rights below Pelton Dam. The project would conduct two major

activities: 1. create the market infrastructure for exchanging water rights; 2. purchase water rights. Market

infrastructure would be developed through a water brokerage that provides market information and

assistance in conducting exchange transactions. Purchased water rights will be converted to in-stream flows

directed at a quantitative objective of 1000 cfs. The water exchange would require the hiring of a project

manager. Major budget items are for the purchase of water rights, which would be permanently converted

to in-stream flows. The response was adequate, detailed, and thoughtful. The response indicates that all

information on water rights transfers will be made available to interested parties. It will be particularly

useful to have the information on water rights transfers made available to research economists so that

information gained from this effort can be transferred to potential efforts elsewhere.

Project ID: 198805306

Hood River Production Program (HRPP): Hatchery O&M - Portland General Electric - Enron

Sponsor: PGE

Subbasin: Deschutes

2002 Request: $165,859

3YR Estimate: $557,854

Short Description: Re-establish a self-sustaining spring chinook salmon population in the Hood River

subbasin. Broodstock will be collected from Hood River. Broodstock held at the Parkdale Facility.

Incubation and rearing completed at Round Butte Hatchery-Pelton Ladder

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The bulk of this project received review (and a recommendation for funding) in the Columbia

Gorge province. While this project physically resides in the Deschutes basin and the Columbia Plateau

(Southwest), it would make more biological sense to review it in the Columbia Gorge province with the

remainder of the Hood River Production Program. The project’s stated goal is to establish a self-sustaining

chinook population; however the proposal includes no indication of monitoring of the status of the chinook

stock that is being established.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

54

John Day

Project ID: 199703400

Monitoring Fine Sediment Grande Ronde and John Day Rivers

Sponsor: CRITFC

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $63,634

3YR Estimate: $200,604

Short Description: Monitor surface fine sediment and overwinter sedimentation in cleaned gravel in

spring chinook spawning habitats in monitored river reaches, analyze potential trends and relationships in

data, and relate to salmon survival.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This ongoing project is to monitor sediment in spawning gravels of the John Day and Grande

Ronde Rivers for five years to determine trends in substrate conditions, the relation between surface fine

sediment and sedimentation of spawning sites, and consistency of substrate conditions with specified

objectives in recovery plans and BiOps. The proposal provides excellent background to the problem and

identifies relationship to FWP goals. Measurable hypotheses are specified. Objectives are presented with

adequate description of tasks and methods. The study is apparently on track with annual reports submitted

in a timely manner. The response was thorough, comprehensive, and adequately addressed the concerns of

the ISRP. This is a well-designed basic study that should be completed.

Project ID: 200003100

North Fork John Day River Subbasin Anadromous Fish Habitat Enhancement Project

Sponsor: CTUIR

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $293,894

3YR Estimate: $919,607

Short Description: Protect and restore habitat critical to the recovery of wild salmonid populations in the

North Fork John Day River Basin and promoting natural ecological function and improved water quality

and quantities.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This proposal is to protect and enhance habitat for natural production of wild spring Chinook

and summer steelhead in the upper north fork of the John Day River Basin. The project will implement revegetation and passive recovery processes on private and public lands. Work that is proposed in this project

appears justified and is in concert with other work and approaches used in the basin. There is good

coordination with other projects and across different ownership interests. The description of the problem

and the subbasin context is complete. The proposal does a good job of laying out the approach and showing

linkages to regional planning documents and other within-basin projects. Description of objectives and

tasks is thorough and the response provided adequate detail on activities, methods and relationship to other

projects.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

55

Project ID: 25069

John Day Salmonid Recovery Monitoring Program

Sponsor: CTWSRO

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $164,133

3YR Estimate: $280,140

Short Description: Update salmonid reproduction goals, compile data to develop predictive models to

guide future restoration efforts, compile data that presents historical riparian condition, investigate missing

bull trout status information.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable if ...

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable if the protocols of this project are consistent with project 25010 in terms of water quality

parameters and measurement methodology (if not sampling site selection). Data from this project should

be compatible with broad scale monitoring projects (e.g #25010) so that inferences can be drawn about

changes observed in the John Day in the context of changes occurring in the larger region.

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project will expand monitoring activities in the John Day Subbasin. There appears to be overlap of

Objective 4 of P&D phase (water quality monitoring) with Project Number 25010. This project needs to

coordinate with 25010, 199801600, and 25088b to avoid duplicative activities. Funding should be delayed

until coordination will insure data overlaps will be minimized.

Project ID: 199801800

John Day Watershed Restoration

Sponsor: CTWSRO

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $576,824

3YR Estimate: $1,752,026

Short Description: Implement protection and restoration actions to improve water quality, water quantity,

and fish habitat, eliminate passage barriers for anadromous and resident fish.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The response was adequate and provided excellent detail on the monitoring and evaluation

portion of the project, including justification for each monitoring activity. Protocols need to be compatible

with those of #s25088 and 199801600 so that inferences can be drawn about observed changes in the

context of changes occurring in the larger region.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

56

Project ID: 199802200

Pine Creek Ranch

Sponsor: CTWSRO

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $172,000

3YR Estimate: $411,750

Short Description: Continue Construction & Implementation, Operations & Maintenance, Monitoring and

Evaluation for Pine Creek Ranch.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This proposal is to conduct various construction, operation and maintenance and monitoring

activities at Pine Creek Ranch. It describes many reasonable activities to be conducted in FY2002. The

proponents gave adequate responses to ISRP questions and concerns. The ISRP appreciated the

clarification on plans to permanently transfer all water rights to instream status. In particular, monitoring

and evaluation on the Pine Creek Ranch appears to be well coordinated with ongoing ODEQ and ODFW

aquatic monitoring projects. Other monitoring is appropriately at the Tier I level for project effectiveness.

However, the ISRP continues to emphasize the need for overall Tier II probabilistic sampling, a need that is

not being met with the use of index sites by the ODFW in currently funded projects in the John Day basin.

The ISRP recommends that terrestrial sampling on Fish and Wildlife Program projects follow a common

sampling method and some common data collection protocols across the four States in order to enhance

monitoring and evaluation of terrestrial systems on subbasin and basin scales. Perhaps the National

Resources Inventory sampling procedures and data collection protocols would serve the region well. See

the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews.

Project ID: 200001500

Oxbow Ranch Management and Implementation

Sponsor: CTWSRO

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $306,898

3YR Estimate: $534,998

Short Description: Implement protection and restoration actions to improve water quality, water quantity,

and fish habitat for anadromous and resident fish; monitor effectiveness of implementation actions

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This proposal is to restore management funds for Oxbow Ranch after its delayed acquisition and

to complete actions identified in the original proposal. The proposal contains good detail of riparian and instream problems requiring remediation. Property management and restoration activities are placed in the

context of the FWP, BiOp and Subbasin summary. Some tasks are required by the Ranch purchase MOA

with BPA. The proposal is fairly straightforward. A list of monitoring activities is presented and an M&E

document is referenced. The proponents gave adequate responses to ISRP questions and concerns. In

particular, monitoring and evaluation on the Oxbow Ranch appears to be well coordinated with ongoing

ODEQ and ODFW monitoring projects for the John Day basin. However, the ISRP continues to emphasize

the need for overall Tier II probabilistic sampling, a need that is not being met with the use of index sites

by the ODFW in currently funded projects in the John Day basin.

The proponents choose not to describe their monitoring programs in terms of the hierarchical Tier I, II, or

III monitoring as described in the ISRP report and referenced to the 2000 BiOp. This was not a
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

57

requirement in the proposal preparation, but the ISRP notes that it would be helpful to adhere to common

jargon across watersheds and basins.

The ISRP recommends that terrestrial sampling on Fish and Wildlife Program lands follow a common

sampling method and some common data collection protocols across the four States in order to enhance

monitoring and evaluation of terrestrial systems on subbasin and basin scales. Perhaps the National

Resources Inventory sampling procedures and data collection protocols would serve the region well. See

the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews.

CBFWA Review Comments:

The NEPA biologist for BPA indicated that if excavation activities occur below the waterline mercury

and/or associated contaminants could be released. The project sponsors have modified the means of

excavation so that areas below the waterline are not disturbed. As a result, BPA supports the continuation

of this project and the excavation activities.

Project ID: 199801700

Eliminate Gravel Push-up Dams in Lower North Fork John Day

Sponsor: North Fork John Day Watershed Council

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $128,000

3YR Estimate: $368,000

Short Description: Eliminate gravel push-up dams in the lower North Fork John Day River. Replace with

permanent pumping stations resulting in removal of passage impediments and elimination of annual

instream modification.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The project proposes to eliminate three gravel push-up dams and replace them with infiltration

gallery pump stations to improve water quality and fish passage. Previous efforts have replaced four gravel

dams with infiltration systems. The project and presentation demonstrated substantial local support for the

program. The proposal made good links to the subbasin summary and to the FWP. The response

adequately addressed ISRP comments about the location and position of push up dams to be removed, as

well as questions about monitoring methods.

Project ID: 25088

Salmonid Population and Habitat Monitoring in the Oregon Portion of the Columbia Plateau

Sponsor: ODFW

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $2,037,569

3YR Estimate: $5,831,991

Short Description: Implement fish population and habitat monitoring (EMAP), steelhead life history

monitoring, habitat prioritization, and fish/wildlife/habitat protection in the Oregon portion of the Columbia

Plateau

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Split into 3 proposals; 2 High Priority, 1 Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable, adequate response. An interagency monitoring coordination committee responsible for tier 2

monitoring in Oregon will integrate this project with other projects monitoring escapements, water quality.

The ISRP strongly endorses this coordination. This proposal would implement a coordinated approach to

fish population and habitat monitoring using the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Monitoring
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

58

Program. This approach has successfully been implemented in Oregon’s coastal watersheds to apply a

rigorous sampling design (EPA EMAP design) and has greatly improved coordination among state, federal,

and tribal governments, along with local watershed groups. The proposal is consistent with the NMFS

2000 BiOp’s recommendation for Tier 1 and Tier 2 monitoring.

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project has been split into three separate proposals identified as 25088a, 25088b, and 25088c.

25088a

The proposal, which specifically addresses NMFS RPA 179, 182, and 184, was submitted through the "fixit loop" per the ISRP's request . The proposed research was originally included as Objective 3 in project

proposal 25088. A specific project number has not been assigned. Coordination must occur between

ODFW and CTWSRO prior to funding.

25088b

This proposal was submitted through the "fix-it loop" per the ISRP's request. This proposed research was

originally included as Objective 5 in project proposal 25088. A specific project number has not been

assigned. This proposal combined with 25010, 25069, 25084, and 199801600 addresses similar issues

leading the reviewers to question to what degree do the collection activities represent redundancy?

Funding should be delayed until coordination will insure data overlaps will be minimized. The reviewers

found that the criteria, for the most part, were not appropriate for reviewing this proposal. However, the

reviewers express concern about the strategies and cannot identify measurable outcomes. This project

would be a companion to the subbasin planning activities and should be initiated (or considered for

funding) when subbasin planning begins.

25088c

This proposal was submitted through the "fix-it loop" per the ISRP's request. This proposed research was

originally included as Objective 7 in project proposal 25088. This proposal has not been assigned a

specific project number. An RPA does not exist for this proposal. This proposal will allow for increased

enforcement on private lands. Presently, the only sites where enforcement occurs are those for which a

complaint has been filed. Enforcement capabilities in the Columbia Plateau South have recently reduced

due to the elimination of six employees. Reviewers indicate that there appears to be a lack of coordination

among enforcement proposals. The CTWSRO, ODFW, and CTUIR need to meet and coordinate prior to

funding. This project poses an in-lieu issue. If funded, this project should be held to the same standards as

the two existing conservation enforcement projects currently being funded under the fish and wildlife

program.

Project ID: 198402100

Protect and Enhance Anadromous Fish Habitat in The John Day Subbasin

Sponsor: ODFW

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $448,500

3YR Estimate: $1,403,500

Short Description: Project develops and implements riparian fencing and instream structure projects to

protect, enhance and restore riparian and instream habitat to improve anadromous salmonid production.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable if ...

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable, only if effectiveness is being adequately monitored and evaluated by methods compatible with

regional monitoring projects (e.g.#s 25088, 199801600, 25010). Monitoring of physical characteristics

must be implemented with compatible methods so that inferences can be drawn about changes observed in

the John Day in the context of changes occurring in the larger region. Tier 1 monitoring for presence or

absence of salmonid species of concern must occur on project sites.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

59

Project ID: 199306600

Oregon Fish Screening Project

Sponsor: ODFW

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $660,870

3YR Estimate: $2,042,683

Short Description: Protect wild anadromous and resident fish species by installing 20 replacement fish

screening devices in irrigation diversion located in critical spawning and rearing areas in the John Day

basin and 1 unscreened and 5 replacements in the Walla Walla.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The response was adequate and provided a method for prioritizing potential projects (but note

that all sites seem to have roughly the same score, i.e. between 75 and 80 of a possible 100 so it doesn’t

seem to provide much guidance for choosing projects.) The proposal did a good job of describing the

problem, its magnitude, history, and recent activities to address it.

Project ID: 199801600

Monitor Natural Escapement & Productivity of John Day Basin Spring Chinook

Sponsor: ODFW

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $333,516

3YR Estimate: $992,998

Short Description: Monitor natural escapement and productivity of John Day River Basin spring chinook

and summer steelhead. Estimate SAR, egg-to-smolt survival, smolt abundance, and adult and parr

distribution for chinook and SAR and spawner escapement for steelhead.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. Adequate response. An interagency monitoring coordination committee responsible for tier 2

monitoring in Oregon will integrate this project with other projects monitoring escapements, water quality.

The ISRP strongly endorses this coordination.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Objectives 1 and 2 (i.e., from smolt monitoring) from project proposal 25088 have been added to this

proposal. The collections of habitat and juvenile monitoring information (Objective 1) is included in

other proposals. Although this project is coordinated with 25010 additional coordination needs to occur

with 25069, 25064, and 25088b.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

60

Project ID: 25067

Manage Water Distribution in the John Day Basin

Sponsor: OWRD

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $251,261

3YR Estimate: $703,023

Short Description: Implement needed water measurement and monitoring improvements and increase

water management as flow restoration projects and actions are implemented in the John Day Basin.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This proposal from the Oregon Water Resource Department is to provide enhanced water

measurement and management necessary to enable the management of in-stream flows in the John Day

River. The proposal provides a convincing case for the improvement in water measurement and

management services required by the acquisition of water rights for in-stream flow. Headgates and

measuring devices will be installed in 50 diversions in the John Day through cost-share arrangements with

water users. In-stream water allocations and water use will be monitored. This is a straightforward and

cost-effective proposal.

The proposal raises a larger policy issue of funding responsibility. Is this an in lieu issue?

Why is it BPA’s responsibility to fund the efforts of an Oregon agency to enforce water laws? Who

enforced the laws before instream flows were established? Water rights must have been monitored and

enforced in the past. Over the long-term, Oregon should develop staff to enforce its laws.

Project ID: 199908800

Columbia Plateau Water Right Acquisition Program

Sponsor: OWT

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $204,000

3YR Estimate: $647,500

Short Description: Acquire existing water rights on a voluntary basis through purchase, gift and water

conservation projects, and transfer to instream water rights under Oregon state law; target acquisitions to

maximize fulfillment of habitat objectives for instream flows.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable.

This proposal is to continue acquisition of water rights and conversion of these rights to in-stream flow.

OWT’s goal is to obtain permanent transfer of water rights from landowners to instream rights.

Acquisitions will focus on senior water rights because instream flow rights retain the seniority of the

original allocation. There are quantitative instream flow goals for the Deschutes, John Day, Umatilla and

Walla Walla Rivers. Streams where streamflow is a limiting factor on fish production and survival will be

targeted. One of the attractive features of the OWT project is that it specifically targets small stream

systems where small instream water contributions may be very significant biologically in terms of reducing

the risk of demographic extinction for small at-risk populations, as well as the potential increase in

salmonid production from the aggregate of several water rights acquisitions. The approach combines a

rigorous set of criteria and objectives with the inherent flexibility that will be required for a program whose

success is contingent upon local landowner involvement and support. The proposal suggests that initial

agreements in some subbasins are likely to involve short-term leases that can evolve into long-term leases

or outright acquisitions as relationships with local landowners mature. Good background on the need for
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

61

these water rights is provided. OWT has a record of conducting similar projects in the Fifteenmile subbasin

(Columbia Gorge Province). Analysis of water rights value (both ecological and economic) is adequately

described. The process for prioritizing acquisitions by relative stream need is logical. A plan to evaluate

the impact of in-stream flow rights is presented. Overall, the proposal presents a logical plan for acquiring

water rights that have high potential benefits for recovery.

This is an important project that could contribute significantly to natural production in the Columbia

Plateau arid stream systems.

Umatilla

Project ID: 25059

Develop Progeny Marker for Salmonids to Evaluate Supplementation

Sponsor: CTUIR

Subbasin: Umatilla

2002 Request: $149,665

3YR Estimate: $500,477

Short Description: A chemical progeny mark would be developed and tested to evaluate natural

reproductive success of supplemented steelhead. The mark would be administered to female parents and

would be detectable in the otolith of their progeny.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The response confirmed that the procedure they proposed (injecting strontium into females for it

to show up in progeny) has not been done before even in laboratory tests. If the method proves useful, the

ISRP expects the next step will be a proposal to apply the method in an evaluation of supplementation. The

important question concerns the impact on fitness of native populations of interbreeding with hatchery fish.

This is a difficult problem that will require creative thinking, especially to identify a credible control.

Project ID: 195505500

Umatilla Tribal Fish & Wildlife Enforcement

Sponsor: CTUIR

Subbasin: Umatilla

2002 Request: $163,369

3YR Estimate: $514,956

Short Description: Increase law enforcement (LE) protection to fish, wildlife, their critical habitats and

other essential natural resources within watersheds managed by CTUIR. The program will be coordinated

with all other resource enhancement projects of the tribe.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This is a proposal from the CTUIR Fish and Wildlife Enforcement division to provide three

enforcement officers to enforce fisheries and habitat regulations on both reservation and ceded lands. The

proposal makes a convincing case for funding enforcement officers. Only .5FTE is currently funded for fish

and wildlife enforcement. Enforcement now has good coordination with fish and wildlife staff in the field,

but it is unreasonable to expect that sufficient enforcement coverage could be maintained this way.

Enforcement of fishing and habitat regulations is a necessary part of environmental management. The

success of fish and wildlife restoration activities depends on maintaining enforcement coverage to

minimize poaching and ensure compliance with habitat protection measures.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

62

The proposal contains a substantial component of monitoring and evaluation, including the development of

targets and criteria for specific performance objectives of the law enforcement program. Monitoring and

evaluation focuses on coordination, contacts, warnings, arrests, seizures and critical habitat protected,

improved public awareness and public participation, voluntary compliance and decreased illegal take of

anadromous and resident fish stocks. It also refers to expected outcomes of increased survival and interdam passage, and improved spawning escapement, although it would not monitor these directly.

CBFWA Review Comments:

This is a new project and not an ongoing project. The tribe currently has only 0.5 FTE for enforcement

throughout NE Oregon, which is inadequate. Through this proposal, enforcement is proposed for all ceded

land. Reviewers indicate that there appears to be a lack of coordination among enforcement proposals.

The CTWSRO, ODFW, and CTUIR need to meet and coordinate prior to funding. If funded, this project

should be held to the same standards as the two existing conservation enforcement projects currently being

funded under the fish and wildlife program.

Project ID: 199506001

Protect and Enhance Wildlife Habitat in Squaw Creek Watershed

Sponsor: CTUIR

Subbasin: Umatilla

2002 Request: $222,268

3YR Estimate: $690,674

Short Description: Protect and enhance watershed resources to provide benefits for eight HEP Target

Species and anadromous and resident salmonids.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This protects and enhances 50 miles of stream habitat and includes upland habitat. Benefits of

riparian protection were clear from the site visits. Wildlife was frequently visible in healthy riparian areas

of the Umatilla. The list of desired conditions and goals, and current status was helpful and should guide

the work effectively. The response addressed the ISRP’s main concerns, but some issues are outstanding.

Would passive restoration be adequate in this protected area? Routine monitoring should be done more

frequently; as it stands, monitoring has been done too infrequently (last done in 1994, and not planned until

sometime in this next 3-yr cycle).

Project ID: 25081

Improve Upstream Fish Passage in the Birch Creek Watershed

Sponsor: ODFW

Subbasin: Umatilla

2002 Request: $300,410

3YR Estimate: $744,355

Short Description: Improve upstream fish passage in the Birch Creek watershed (Umatilla River tributary)

for the benefit of summer steelhead and redband trout by removing structures or building fishways over

existing irrigation diversion dams.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority (correcting passage barriers)

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable.

A response was provided that adequately addressed the ISRP’s concerns about the completeness of the

original written proposal. The original proposal combined with the response to the ISRP’s preliminary

comments provide an adequate basis for funding. There was an Action Plan submittal as well, focusing on

different barriers in Birch Creek.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

63

This is a straightforward proposal to remove migration barriers in a subbasin of the Umatilla River that is a

high producer of summer steelhead and contains redband trout. Farming and irrigation have resulted in >5

major barriers to migration (and other smaller ones) due to obstructions and inadequate ladders. Fishblocking dams were used instead of infiltration galleries or other fish-friendly alternatives. Despite these

former abuses, Birch Creek has a wild stock of steelhead estimated at 30% of the Umatilla subbasin

production, and is a focus of other habitat restoration work. The plan is to install stepped dams with lower

heads, in series, with passage facilities, dealing with the worst cases first. The construction work would be

subcontracted from the ODFW office, with oversight by ODFW staff.

The written proposal was incomplete in several respects, but adequately supplemented. The site visit, oral

presentation, and response to the ISRP’s preliminary comments helped alleviate most questions from the

written proposal. The proposal’s narrative provided good background, regional rationale, and relationships

to other projects. The response clarified the objectives, tasks, and methods. The barrier sites were listed in

the response, with their major characteristics. Alternative methods for removing barriers were discussed

and the reasons given for selecting particular methods for particular projects. A monitoring and evaluation

task was added in the response (although with professed need for further funding). This follow-up

monitoring seems needed to verify that the projects are successful, even though the Oregon guidelines for

such work will be followed (results of monitoring may be useful for evaluating the guidelines, as well).

Although the proponents seemed to balk at the suggestion of the need for monitoring, the ISRP believes

that the project must incorporate this (not necessarily additional) cost into their proposal. The proposed

radio-tracking study to document passage may be excessively expensive (traditional mark-recapture

techniques may suffice to document movement of juveniles upstream past previous barriers). It would be

valuable to tie into an overall sub-basin monitoring and evaluation effort that documents the changes in

salmonid yield that can be related to their particular project, perhaps via smolt or adult sampling as well as

a tagging process.

Birch Creek seems to be a good watershed on which to do remedial work for passage barriers in order to

maintain and expand existing stocks of steelhead and trout. It could be a good model for other watersheds

in the region.

Project ID: 198902401

Evaluate Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin

Sponsor: ODFW

Subbasin: Umatilla

2002 Request: $286,427

3YR Estimate: $898,555

Short Description: Assess migration patterns, abundance, survival of hatchery and natural juvenile

salmonids in Umatilla basin using PIT tag technology; monitor lamprey and resident fish; assess affects of

river variables on fish migration; develop adult interrogation

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This is a well-designed monitoring and evaluation program that provides a basis for evaluation

of habitat improvement measures and other projects. In addition, it collects information necessary for the

hatchery evaluation and monitoring project. It would be useful to include a discussion of what the data

show about the success of the watershed restoration program for fish. This is valuable work with

publishable results accumulating on natural production, including evidence of a potential smolt capacity

(~50,000), hatchery survivals during smolt migration, and other potential research uses for these results if

future experiments or investigations are well described. Express the smolt yield as a function of the

number of spawners, i.e., as smolts per spawner, relative to the number. Is natural smolt recruitment above

replacement at current survival rates in freshwater and the ocean? Several internal publications – need to

publish in formal fisheries literature. The goal of assessment of affects of river variables on fish migration
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

64

should commence with a thorough literature review on salmonid smolt migration. This project could

benefit by inclusion of a broader range of researchers interested in migration and survival. Literature

review and publication will assist in stimulating that scientific interest, to the benefit of the project.

Project ID: 25055

Echo Meadows Artificial Recharge Extended Groundwater and Surface Water Modeling

Sponsor: PNNL

Subbasin: Umatilla

2002 Request: $390,283

3YR Estimate: $780,566

Short Description: Assess impacts of artificial recharge design on stream temperature, effluent chemistry,

and pulse duration. This project is designed to establish tools and protocols that can be ported to additional

candidate sites.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority (pollutant work) Recommended Action (modeling effort)

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The response clarified how the two projects on the Echo Meadows recharge study came to be

proposed separately and somewhat out of phase (they began by separate routes and different people). We

applaud the use of PNNL’s modeling expertise for the study already begun by IRZ. The coupled proposals

should lead to good results.

This is a well-written proposal for groundwater and surface water modeling associated with the Echo

Meadows test of groundwater recharge using an irrigation system. Groundwater recharge in winter when

flows are high and water cold is an idea that has been developing since the ISG wrote “Return to the

River.” This proposal is an evolution of those discussions, as was the IRZ Echo Meadows proposal. The

models proposed for use are good ones. The staff is experienced in groundwater modeling at the Hanford

site. The reviewers were initially surprised that this modeling effort was not part of the original Echo

Meadows proposal, but now understand the history. This project needs to have a ground truthing

component that will be available from the first Echo Meadows project. The claim is made in this proposal

that the models have been widely used and just need to be calibrated, which prompted several reviewer

comments and suggestions. The response adequately discussed the calibration process. The proposal for

three additional wells “Due to the extreme spatial geologic variability of the sediments at this site” seems

justified.

This work would follow much of the Echo Meadows testing, but needs to be in this 3-year proposal cycle if

it is to be done with, or soon after, the field tests. This work will be conducted functionally as part of the

Echo Meadows testing project, previously funded, but use different staff with different expertise. It is

reasonable that the funding be separate. Care should be taken to ensure that the two projects are, in fact,

closely coordinated.

CBFWA Review Comments:

The modeling effort should be recommended action but the monitoring of pollutants should be high

priority.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

65

Project ID: 25029

Westland-Ramos Fish Passage and Habitat Restoration Pilot Project

Sponsor: Westland Irrigation District

Subbasin: Umatilla

2002 Request: $203,020

3YR Estimate: $1,287,100

Short Description: Improve the upstream passage for anadromous fisheries resources (migration,

spawning and rearing), and enhance bedload transport function, by notching two diversion dams within a

1.25-mile river reach of the lower Umatilla River.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable (high priority).

This is an excellent proposal that addresses removal of barriers that cause excessive delay or serious injury

of migrating anadromous fish that can increase vulnerability of stocks. This project intends to overcome a

major impediment to passage associated with bedload transport problems at a major diversion in the

Umatilla River. The proposal reflects a great deal of preparatory work by the proposer to develop plans for

a much needed project and obtain broad acceptance by affected stakeholders in irrigated agriculture as well

as fisheries. Affected species are listed by ESU (Part 1). There is a thorough listing (Part 1) and discussion

(Part 2) of interrelationship with related projects. Plans for information transfer are thorough and good.

Costs are well laid out in Part 1. There is excellent cost sharing, amounting to a significant proportion of

the costs (past, proposed, and continuing). The stages of work, both already completed by the proposer or

with other project funding and those still to be done, are well laid out (abstract). The excellent section on

rationale and significance to regional programs has very complete and useful summary tables. The proposal

could benefit, however, by including the available data concerning the length of delay caused by the site,

and the likely significance (quantitative) of the delay, based on the other studies. There are good objectives

and tasks, with appropriately described methods. There is a clear and good plan for monitoring and

evaluation. The reference list is comprehensive. The staff is well described (both those to be funded by the

project and other participants funded elsewhere) and seem competent. Throughout the proposal, electronic

links are provided to detailed supplementary information (this would be helpful when needed, but was

unhandy for reviewers with hard copies). All-in-all, the proposal is a high quality, professional package,

augmented by an excellent presentation and photos, that demonstrates well the need for the project, how it

would be accomplished and the high likelihood for success.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

66

Walla Walla

Project ID: 199601100

Walla Walla River Juvenile and Adult Passage Improvements

Sponsor: CTUIR

Subbasin: Walla Walla

2002 Request: $2,856,000

3YR Estimate: $6,356,000

Short Description: Provide safe passage for migrating juvenile and adult salmonids in the Walla Walla

Basin by constructing and maintaining passage facilities at irrigation diversion dams and canals.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The response provided further assurance that monitoring and evaluation of fish passage will be

conducted and written annual reports of progress will be provided.

This is a good proposal on a subject that is important for the Walla Walla River subbasin. The need to

repair problems generated by irrigation was clear. The Subbasin Summary provides the integration

requested in previous ISRP reviews of this project. The species involved are identified to ESU. There is a

good list of engineering accomplishments (Part 1) and discussion of them in Part 2. The costs are well laid

out, including the increase if funding requested compared to the estimate from last year. There is minimal

cost sharing, except for a few unspecified small projects. Objectives, tasks, and methods are fine,

considering the actual work will be subcontracted. Reference list is adequate. Resumes for proposer staff

are fine.

The main drawback in the written proposal was the apparent lack of functional monitoring and evaluation

of the biological success of passage improvements (dam removal or improved passage routes and intake

screening). The only monitoring within this project is to see if biological criteria of the newly engineered

structures are met. See the ISRP’s general comments in the preliminary report for information on

monitoring (effectiveness monitoring for fish—Tier 1—seems needed as well as the planned monitoring of

the equipment functioning). This deficiency was addressed in the response, which indicated that subbasin

monitoring already in place (current project 200003300) will cover the results of this project. It will be

important for this project to link its work to the results of that monitoring, both in annual reports and in

subsequent proposals. This project should be tied to a watershed assessment. Also, there was no plan for

written reporting of results, which the response indicated would be remedied.

Project ID: 200002600

RAINWATER WILDLIFE AREA

Sponsor: CTUIR

Subbasin: Walla Walla

2002 Request: $303,546

3YR Estimate: $908,038

Short Description: Protect, enhance, and mitigate wildlife habitat impacted by McNary and John Day

hydroelectric projects. Project includes O&M to protect existing habitat values, enhancements to increase

habitat quantity and quality, and M&E to assess project benefits.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The ISRP did not request a response to our review and we continue to recommend acquisition of

this property. We note that the proponent reduced their request for funds. The proponents chose to repeat

the responses given by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to ISRP concerns on proposal

#200002300 “Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Horn Butte (Philippi Property)” because those
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

67

responses accurately reflect the methods proposed for monitoring and evaluation on the BAIC Tract. The

ODFW responses to ISRP concerns on #200002300 should be made part of this proposal. In like manner,

the ISRP general comments on #200002300 are also applicable to acquisition of the BAIC Tract and we

repeat them below with a few word changes to refer to the BAIC Tract.

One of the initial recommendations of the ISRP on the BAIC Tract proposal was that the proponents

consider cooperating with the EPA EMAP to insure compatibility of wildlife and vegetation sampling

across large landscapes (counties, states, or combinations of states) in the same manner that the Oregon

Plan for Salmon and Watersheds is using EPA EMAP procedures for monitoring of aquatic resources. The

proponents commented that the Western EMAP does not have a terrestrial component. This may be true

for the current Western EMAP, but certainly the original EMAP had a large terrestrial component. The

ISRP is not specifically recommending the EMAP terrestrial sampling plan. Rather, we are more interested

in ensuring that sampling on these large blocks of Fish and Wildlife Program lands be compatible with a

larger scale terrestrial sampling plan and that data collected will be useful for monitoring and evaluation at

the subbasin and Columbia Basin levels.

We appreciate the proponents’ research into the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s terrestrial

monitoring program called the National Resources Inventory. Apparently there are more than one million

sampling points across the United States where land cover information is gathered. The proponents

propose to evaluate this sampling program and the possibility of coordinating mapping locations with

established NRI points and we strongly recommend that they do so. Data on the BAIC Tract of the Horn

Butte property would be at an intensified finer scale than the planned national survey, but compatibility of

sampling methods and data collection protocols would enhance the ability of the proponents to compare

their property to other areas on a larger scale and to provide information to monitoring and evaluation at the

subbasin, basin, and national levels. In short, the ISRP is not pushing the EMAP terrestrial sampling plan.

We are recommending that the terrestrial sampling on Fish and Wildlife Program lands follow a common

sampling method and some common data collection protocols across the four States involved to enhance

monitoring and evaluation of terrestrial systems on subbasin and basin scales. Perhaps the National

Resources Inventory sampling procedures and data collection protocols would serve the region well.

Project ID: 200020139

Walla Walla River Fish Passage Operations

Sponsor: CTUIR

Subbasin: Walla Walla

2002 Request: $109,551

3YR Estimate: $418,880

Short Description: Increase survival of migrating juvenile and adult salmonids in the Walla Walla Basin

by operating passage facilities, flow enhancement measures, trapping facilities, and transport equipment to

provide adequate passage conditions.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The collection of Walla Walla River projects is aimed at restoring salmon and rehabilitating

steelhead populations in the Walla Walla Basin. Fish passage is a prerequisite to developing and

maintaining successful runs of anadromous fish. This work should be continued. Engineered structures are

in place and require annual operations and maintenance. However, an audit of this and similar projects

might be considered to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of some components. This project should

be tied to a basinwide monitoring and evaluation project; see general comments.

CBFWA Review Comments:

The actual project number for this work is 200003300.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

68

Project ID: 25066

Manage Water Distribution in the Walla Walla River Basin

Sponsor: OWRD

Subbasin: Walla Walla

2002 Request: $552,525

3YR Estimate: $1,397,300

Short Description: Implement needed water measurement and monitoring improvements and increase

water management as flow restoration projects and actions are implemented in the Walla Walla Basin.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable.

The proposal is to provide resources needed by Oregon Water Resources Department to ensure that water

acquired to enhance stream flows for fish is in fact restored to streams. There is a need for a coordinated

effort to restore flows in the Walla Walla River at levels sufficient for fish passage. This project is a critical

component in that effort. It will provide a means for the water master to ensure that quantities of water set

aside for fish flows will actually be left in the river. Monitoring to ensure that these transfers happen and

that the water persists is surely in BPA/ratepayer interest. The proposal combined with the responses to

initial ISRP’s comments provides a good technical basis for funding.

The proposal was persuasive that this sort of water monitoring and management is needed. Background

accomplishments in this river are listed in Part 1, but could have been discussed further in Part 2 to give

more background on what has already been done. This was remedied in the response. Costs are laid out

well in Part 1. There is a reasonable cost share (25% of installation costs by irrigation districts and others).

The narrative has a good abstract and background. The proposal would have been better if it went into more

detail about how the ODWR handles water allocations now and the work accomplished to date in this river

(again, remedied in the response). The proposal adequately references the FWP, BiOp and Subbasin

Summary. There was not an adequate demonstration that the proposers understand the extent of other

fishery-related projects in the river basin (that require water), although the proposal mentions other

organizations with interests in water monitoring and water rights, and there is a general appreciation shown

for the needs. Data management was not adequately described, and reviewers feared it might actually be

inadequate for BPA needs. References were minimal, consisting of just the basin plans. No ODWR

references were given for their water measurement system or their water management background (general

or specific to the Walla Walla River). The reviewers felt that ODWR’s current water tracking system

should be described and referenced with document citations.

The response provided background on what the Oregon Department of Water Resources does now, both as

its overall mission and in the Walla Walla basin. They gave web links to further information. They do not

see any hope that state funds will become available for what appears to be a state responsibility. It is in the

interest of BPA to ensure that water obtained for fish is made available for fish. The response included a

listing of related fishery projects (not just BPA-funded) in the basin, which relate to water monitoring and

regulation. They discussed their data management (data go into the USGS system) and willingness to

accommodate BPA needs and databases by transfer of data or other means.

This is a very important water monitoring and management project for the Walla Walla River basin in

Oregon. Although it might normally be accomplished under the agency’s state mandate and funding, the

realistic view is that such funds will not be available. Our only caution is that BPA should consider “in

lieu” implications.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

69

Project ID: 199802000

Assess Fish Habitat and Salmonids in the Walla Walla Watershed in Washington

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Walla Walla

2002 Request: $362,652

3YR Estimate: $863,652

Short Description: This project includes design and construction of adult traps in Mill Creek and the

Touchet River, and steelhead and bull trout monitoring activities in those drainages and in the lower Walla

Walla River. It also includes participation in NEOH planning.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. It is essential for WDFW to continue its assessments in the Walla Walla Basin, as efforts

continue to restore salmon and steelhead populations. These efforts continue to uncover new and vital

information on presence of fish and their relationships to environmental conditions. The two groups

working on the monitoring and evaluation task should meet and agree on a coordinated approach that is a

function of the questions to be asked. A review of smolt and adult trapping options is recommended, if a

decision is reached to proceed with that component. The watershed conditions assessment must continue to

completion, with immediate attention to high priority restorations, and planning.

Project ID: 25082

Walla Walla River Flow Restoration

Sponsor: WWBWC

Subbasin: Walla Walla

2002 Request: $478,000

3YR Estimate: $478,000

Short Description: This proposal will add 5 to 7 cfs of conserved irrigation water to the Walla Walla River

at the critical flow-impaired reach between the town of Milton-Freewater and the Oregon-Washington state

line.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable.

This seems to be a worthwhile project to increase the water efficiency of irrigation and preserve the saved

water for in-stream uses under Oregon Water Law. This project is part of the effort to restore flows

sufficient for fish passage in the Walla Walla River. It focuses on purchase or lease of water rights and on

improvements in farm efficiency in the use of water. An inefficient canal will be converted to pipelines.

The Water Basin District has a means of enforcing the allocations of water for fish flows. That would have

a real benefit for fish. However, the initial proposal was short on what would actually be done, even though

the overall justification and end result are clear, and the sponsors needed to clarify monitoring. Each of

these concerns was alleviated with the response.

The information in Part 1 is good. Costs and objectives are ok. There is excellent cost share, amounting to

over 50% when in-kind contributions are included. The reviewers felt that the proposal could have better

explained why the section of the river goes dry. The proposal does a good job of relating the work to

regional plans, quoting from the 1994 and 2000 FWPs and the Subbasin Summary (but not the BiOp), and

refers to the BOR Action Plan and a Corps reconnaissance report. Many relevant projects in the vicinity

are cited including those from the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board and Oregon Water Trust’s Water

Acquisition Program, as well as those funded by BPA. There are good objectives. The reviewers felt the

narrative could explain more about what will actually be done (or options) toward improving irrigation
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

70

systems as well as more details of the pipeline that would replace the old canal (the presentation helped

here). There were no references cited, although there must be useful reports on irrigation water efficiency

that could be mentioned as prototypes for justifying what would be done. Bios of staff were painfully brief,

and gave little background for a reviewer to judge competence. Although matching funds and in-kind

contributions are excellent, the proposal left unclear how the proposal’s funds would be used in contrast to

efforts or funds from others. Monitoring needed clarification.

The proposers responded to all of the ISRP concerns. They described how they will upgrade irrigationwater delivery systems (convert ditch irrigation to spray, and replace an open, unlined ditch with piping).

The monitoring elements of this proposal and Number 25066 were clarified. Their monitoring will be Type

1. References were cited explaining why this segment of the river goes dry (infiltration plus irrigation use).

The response referred generally to the BiOp objectives. Appropriate references were provided for water

efficiency improvements. More complete biographies were provided, as was the breakdown of cost-share

contributions.

This should be a valuable project.

Mainstem Snake

Project ID: 25049

Numerically Simulating the Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Environment for Migrating Salmon in the

Lower Snake River

Sponsor: PNNL

Subbasin: Mainstem Snake

2002 Request: $207,360

3YR Estimate: $498,599

Short Description: The objective of this work is to apply state-of-the-art computer models that can

describe the complex hydrodynamic and water quality environment in the lower Snake River, and to relate

that information to migrating salmon.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This is a technically excellent proposal by a well-qualified staff to conduct physical modeling

and associated data collection for estimating the environmental conditions and cumulative exposures

experienced by migrating salmon in the lower Snake River. The proposal is well written. Project personnel

are highly qualified to conduct the work. The work is responsive to a need for better understanding of

conditions, especially thermal, in the Snake River as they influence migratory salmonids. The work should

yield potential strategies for management of water during migration and bases for useful hypotheses for

improving survival of migrating salmonids.

Some specific comments are provided by the reviewers for the authors (but do not need a formal response).

The species affected are not listed by the proposal. Such a listing is needed for automated searches of the

proposal database (could be supplied to BPA at the contract stage). Also, because different species have

different habitat usage, hydrodynamics may need to be tailored to particular species. This proposal appears

to focus on fall chinook. The “objectives” in Part 1 are not objectives but categories of work (objectives

should be desired outcomes). Budgets are not categorized correctly (everything is placed in planning rather

than most of the work being in implementation). With no monitoring and evaluation identified either in Part

1 or Part 2, it appears that there will be no evaluation of the validity of the models. There is no cost sharing

identified, although the abundant use of data from other sources could have been claimed as a valuable inkind contribution. There is an excellent background that identifies objectives better than the stated

objectives. The regional rationale is supported by specific action items from the NMFS BiOp, Subbasin

Summary, and 2000 FWP. The two principal fall chinook salmon studies funded by BPA are identified as

having relationships to this proposal, but other on-going work (e.g., by the Corps) is not identified but is

clearly relevant as shown by the reference list. The objectives in the narrative are better than those in Part 1.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

71

The modeling scale should be identified (e.g., whether velocity is scaled to the size of a 10-cm fish or

larger). The objective of calculating integrated exposures of fish to temperature, gas, etc. that was

highlighted in the background should appear as a separate objective in the narrative (this seems to be one of

the main desired outcomes of the work). There are excellent task descriptions. It is not clear, however,

whether the models with their input parameters will be publicly available for others to do confirmatory

runs. The facilities are fine, based on both the paragraph of the proposal and the past work cited in the

excellent reference list. It would have been useful to note where the agency reports cited are available (web

or by request of the agency?). The staff is well qualified to do the proposed work. This modeling approach

by a well-qualified lab continues to improve and will be useful in the future. There is potential for stronger

coordination with several other projects in this reach of river (e.g., juvenile fall chinook salmon tagging

#199102900 and #25064). There may also be useful coordination with the infrared imagery proposal for

temperature measurement (FLIR;project #25065).

Project ID: 25064

Investigating passage of ESA-listed juvenile fall chinook salmon at Lower Granite Dam during winter

when the fish bypass system is inoperable.

Sponsor: USFWS; USGS

Subbasin: Mainstem Snake

2002 Request: $176,000

3YR Estimate: $438,000

Short Description: Describe passage timing, genetic lineage, scale patterns, and locations of fall chinook

salmon that hold over in Lower Granite Reservoir during the winter.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This is a good proposal for research needed to clarify the migration timing of fall chinook

salmon that may overwinter in the Lower Snake River. Project personnel have identified a gap in

understanding of life-history of chinook salmon. Bypass systems for migrating juvenile chinook salmon

are closed between November and April at Lower Granite Dam. Recent information shows that this may

impede emigrating fall chinook salmon that did not escape before November, but presumably stayed in the

system through much of the winter (or alter our migration understanding, because of lack of monitoring

data in winter). Preliminary data show that these fish make a significant contribution to the returning adults

from a given brood. The proposal is to assess the significance of this situation for fall chinook salmon.

The proposal is generally complete and persuasive. The information in Part 1 is complete. There is an

excellent background section. The work is justified with specific action items from the NMFS BiOp and the

Subbasin Summary (but strangely not the FWP). There is a good description of the relationships to other

projects, not just BPA’s. There are good objectives (although stated more like tasks than as desired

outcomes), tasks, and methods. One wonders if the scale pattern analysis for seawater entry has been

verified with elemental analyses (e.g., Sr/Ca ratios). There is an appropriate reference list. Staff resumes are

complete and the staff is clearly competent to do the work. This is the same crew that has been doing the

wild fall chinook studies underway since the early 1990s and this project is a logical extension of that work

(but not within the existing scope). The studies are needed and this is the right group to do them.

Based on the presentation and discussion, it is even more convincing that we have generated an

overwintering stock of fall chinook through our thermal manipulations of the Snake-Clearwater system. If

it is happening, we are missing much of it with our standard fish monitoring operations that end in fall and

don’t begin again until spring. This change in life-cycle could be highly important for the general notion of

species’ adaptability and for the persistence of the Snake River wild fall chinook. It must be tested with the

sort of work proposed here. A peculiarity is that the proposal continually implies that the bypass system

should perhaps be operated for these fish, presumably to improve their survival, yet it provides data

suggesting that their rate of survival is high relative to fish that do not hold over (i.e., use the bypass when
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

72

it operates). Perhaps an alternative hypothesis deserves exploration. In summary, this is important work

that deserves high priority for funding.

Project ID: 199102900

Understanding the effects of summer flow augmentation on the migratory behavior and survival of fall

chinook salmon migrating through L. Granite Res.

Sponsor: USFWS; USGS

Subbasin: Mainstem Snake

2002 Request: $630,375

3YR Estimate: $1,851,125

Short Description: Increase the potential for fall chinook salmon recovery by providing data and analyses

for implementing, evaluating, and understanding the mechanisms of summer flow augmentation.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The initial review found this project fundable if a response clarified how the proposers see their

work resolving the broad issue of whether or to what extent flow augmentation improves or affects survival

of juvenile salmonids in the mainstem Snake River. Also, the budget needed to be carefully evaluated (as

requested in last year's review). The proposers expanded their proposal by further discussing their recent

studies of migration timing and survival. These results had been presented to the ISAB, but not to the

ISRP. The authors included discussion about how these results addressed the broader question of the value

of flow augmentation. With this discussion, they clearly demonstrate their understanding of the complexity

of the issue. They rightly note that the broad question will be answered by many well-focussed studies on

particular aspects of the problem. They see their work as contributing incrementally to those specific

studies. We agree, and judge the proposal as modified to be acceptable for funding.

This is a project that deserves to continue. It has appropriately modified its scope over its history to meet

changing views of data needs. Proposers have been responsive to previous ISRP reviews. The responses

substantiated its role in evaluating primarily wild fish in contrast to the other main study that focuses on

timed releases of hatchery fish (#199302900), although this study will use hatchery fish for telemetry.

There is an excellent list of accomplishments in the form of publications and presentations in Part 1, with a

summary in narrative form in Part 2. The response augmented Part 2, where the ISRP believed it could

have stressed the actual scientific results more. There is a concise background section. For regional

justification, there are quotes and specific items cited from the BiOp, Subbasin Summary, and FWP.

The narrative's objectives, tasks, and methods are well specified. This project has yielded good primary

data results for the Fish and Wildlife Program from an area of the hydrosystem with much significance for

listed fall chinook salmon. It should continue on the modified track this proposal outlines.

The ISAB reviewed the results of this project extensively this winter/spring for its review of flow

augmentation and found the work of value. The ISAB subcommittee also suggested that some of the work

now proposed should be done, either in this project or new ones. The proposers indicated that they would

coordinate with and use information from the PNNL modeling proposal (#25049).

The ISRP is satisfied with the response that places this work into the broader context of flow augmentation

questions. Clearly, the authors are on top of this whole issue and see their work in the appropriate context.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

73

Palouse

Project ID: 25008

Resident Fish Stock Status in the Palouse River and Upper Crab Creek Watersheds, Washington.

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Palouse

2002 Request: $546,670

3YR Estimate: $1,503,152

Short Description: The project is designed to collect baseline fish related data for the Palouse River and

Crab Creek drainages. The baseline data will be compiled into a database, with existing data, for managers,

as well as be used to develop fish management plans.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable: The ISRP concluded this to be a technically sound proposal, but its priority appears low because

of likely marginal benefits to fish.

Tucannon

Project ID: 200001900

Tucannon River Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Tucannon

2002 Request: $94,509

3YR Estimate: $342,009

Short Description: Conduct the Tucannon River spring chinook captive broodstock program. Rear and

spawn broodstock, raise their progeny and release up to an additional 150,000 smolts into the Tucannon

River to rebuild their run and prevent extinction.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The response effectively addressed the ISRP’s concerns, which included a lack of focus on the

integration of artificial production issues and timing with habitat improvement actions in the subbasin and a

need for greater emphasis on statistical analysis of the data collected during the program’s monitoring and

evaluation activities.

The sponsor’s response effectively addressed these issues. Their conclusions concerning supplementation

are important and should be an important consideration in other supplementation programs in the Basin.

These are findings in support of what was an intuitively obvious limitation for supplementation from the

outset. This project was conceived as an emergency action to protect Tucannon chinook until habitat could

be restored to the extent needed to support a viable population. The run has subsequently improved and

the emergency action may no longer be needed. A problem that may need some attention, however, is the

fact that the effective population now consists of fewer than 100 animals (from the 1995 run).
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

74

Yakima

Project ID: 25026

Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat Program (YTAHP)

Sponsor: Kittitas County Water Purveyors

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $2,022,760

3YR Estimate: $6,935,260

Short Description: Implement fish enhancements (fish passage, screens and riparian habitat) on Yakima

tributaries based on prioritized schedule developed through a collaborative approach of local, state, federal

and tribal interests. Conduct early actions in 2002.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority (Objective 2 only)

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable as specified by CBFWA. The response was very clear and showed that considerable effort went

into its preparation. In addition, the proposal offers passage improvements that will likely benefit stocks

targeted in the Action Plan solicitation. The well-written response to ISRP queries was helpful in clarifying

how this large (and costly) proposed program, which has the potential to increase production of both

anadromous and resident fish in several hundred miles of Yakima River tributaries, should be prioritized.

Although the panel recognizes that it is not possible to precisely quantify the magnitude of potential fish

benefits at this time, it views the effort as worthy of support.

Reasons for that support include:

1. the pro-active approach of KCWP staff and the organization's established track record of cooperation

with federal agencies and the Yakama Nation,

2. the belief, based on experience elsewhere, that such a project should further bring together a variety of

stakeholders, especially landowners, in a cooperative effort to restore fish passage and rearing,

3. evidence that there will be costsharing by KCWP participants, and evidence of a substantial

commitment from the Yakama Nation, provided in the response to ISRP comments on project 199803400,

to coordinate with KCWP to maximize fish benefits while minimizing project cost. Specifically, tributaries

will be prioritized using a combination of EDT analysis and professional experience and judgment, the YN

program to identify blocked and unscreened diversions will continue in coordination with KCWP, and YN

staff indicate a willingness to attend monthly coordination meetings.

CBFWA Review Comments:

It is good to see the local stakeholders taking an initiative to address the needs within this watershed.

Coordination with co-managers has recently begun and needs to continue. The budget seems extremely

high for the initiation of a new project. Until an implementation plan has been developed, it may be

inappropriate to provide implementation funding. Fund Objective 2 only (i.e.. complete strategic plan).

Once the plan has been completed, re-apply for implementation funds. We suggest partnering with the YIN

in the Wilson Creek project. Implementation plan should be developed in concert with the area fish and

wildlife co-managers. Implementation activities should be considered a "Recommended Action" until a

plan has been completed and should be coordinated with the Yakima Nation prior to funding.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

75

Yakima Screen Proposals

Project ID: 199105700

Fabricate and Install Yakima Basin Phase II Fish

Sponsor: WDFW, YSS

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $159,889

3YR Estimate: $179,889

Short Description: WDFW, YSS fabricates and installs fish screens and miscellaneous metalwork for

Yakima Basin Phase II screening projects. New fish screens prevent mortality and/or injury to all life

stages of anadromous and resident fish in irrigation diversions.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The response suitably clarified several procedural items. This project is part of a long-standing

program that would appear to have contributed significantly to survival improvements in downriver

salmonid migrants. This funding would complete Phase II replacement or upgrade of all screen facilities in

the Yakima basin by the end of FY 2003.

Project ID: 199200900

Operate & Maintain (O&M) Yakima Basin Phase II Fish Screens

Sponsor: WDFW, YSS

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $148,557

3YR Estimate: $467,505

Short Description: WDFW, YSS performs preventative and emergency maintenance and operational

adjustment on completed Phase II fish screen facilities to assure optimal fish protection performance and to

extend facility life, thereby protecting BPA's capital investment.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This proposal would continue O & M on Yakima basin screens, clearly an essential, routine

component of the process.

Project ID: 199503300

O&M of Yakima Phase II Fish Facilities*

Sponsor: USBR

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $66,037

3YR Estimate: $306,037

Short Description: Operate and maintain BPA owned fish screening and trapping facilities located

throughout the Yakima River basin to prevent injury or mortality to anadromous and resident fish, and to

protect BPA's capital investment.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This proposal would continue O & M on Yakima basin screens, clearly an essential, routine

component of the process. Reviewers appreciated the itemization of the facilities receiving that O & M, as

well as the detailed description of the complicated operational and fiscal interactions among the groups and

agencies involved.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

76

Project ID: 199107500

Yakima Phase II Screens - Construction*

Sponsor: USBR

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $1,000,000

3YR Estimate: $1,190,000

Short Description: Install new fish screens at previously scheduled diversions in the Yakima River Basin

to prevent mortality or injury to anadromous and resident fish.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This is part of a long-standing program that would appear to have contributed significantly to

survival improvements in downriver salmonid migrants. This funding would complete Phase II replacement

or upgrade of all screen facilities in the Yakima basin by the end of FY 2003. The proposal notes that

project prioritization is determined by the Passage TWG, including input from the BPA project manager,

BOR, state and federal agencies, and YIN.

It is not possible to assess this or its companion proposal on science-based standards. As noted in the FY

2000 review, this project is tightly linked to project #199107500 and closely related to project #19920900.

Some of the project descriptions shared the same introductory material. This suggests that these proposals

could have been introduced under one proposal, which would have reduced the repetitive material and

provided an opportunity to specifically describe the functional relationship among these projects.

Reviewers were confused by an apparent redundancy of effort, with efforts from both projects #199107500

and #199105700 being expended on the same screen sites.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

77

Project ID: 198506200

Passage Improvement Evaluation

Sponsor: PNNL

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $113,587

3YR Estimate: $347,059

Short Description: Evaluate the biological and hydrologic effectiveness of juvenile fish passage facilities

constructed at irrigation diversion dams, canals and ditches to allow the passage of migrating fishes.

Evaluate sites with respect to NMFS passage criteria.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This was a strong and effective response that provided useful information and dissipated

reviewer concern. Justification for keeping this project separate from design, construction, operation and

maintenance projects is adequate. The tightened protocol for problem reporting and correction, at least for

WDFW screens, that was proposed in the response seems to strengthen that process (assuming it is

positively viewed by WDFW, BOR, and NMFS). The proposed protocol does not specify the feedback

details for USBR built and operated screens. This should be established in as much detail as the WDFW

protocol.

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project includes evaluation of BOR fish screens and should be funded through that agency. This

raises an in-lieu question.

More Yakima

Project ID: 25036

The Impact of Flow Regulation on Riparian Cottonwood Ecosystems

in the Yakima River Basin.

Sponsor: BioQuest

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $225,495

3YR Estimate: $430,066

Short Description: Research riparian cottonwood and geomorphic response to regulated flows in the

Yakima Basin and compare to the responses of an unregulated reach of the Flathead River with the

objective of enhancing flows to restore riparian habitats in the Yakima Basin.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This proposal has been developed based on a BPA Innovative Projects Program that was

initiated to study the impact of regulated flows on riparian cottonwoods in the Yakima River Basin. Initial

results of that study have shown that current patterns of flow regulation within the Yakima Basin are

having a significant negative effect on the recruitment of cottonwood seedlings. The authors have also

developed a preliminary model for modifying flow regimes to promote the recovery of riparian

cottonwoods, and assessed several different types of multi-spectral imagery for classifying the extent of

riparian cottonwood ecosystems.

The life history and ecology of riparian cottonwoods are closely linked with the dynamics of riverine

processes. With the damming of rivers and subsequent alteration of seasonal flow regimes, the structure

and function of riparian cottonwood ecosystems have been significantly altered along many western rivers.

On the merits of their recent findings, these authors propose to expand their sampling efforts and integrate
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

78

studies of cottonwood recruitment with specific measures of fluvial geomorphic activity. The results of

these studies would provide a scientific basis for modifying flows to lessen the ecological impacts of flow

regulation in the Yakima Basin. The authors will also assess these quantitative relationships in a nonregulated reach that can serve as a natural analogue to the Yakima River; specifically, the Middle Fork

(Nyack Reach) of the Flathead River in western Montana. These authors suggest that the synergy of these

efforts would significantly advance the understanding of the ecology of alluvial reaches in the Columbia

River Basin and quantify key relationships between flow regulation, geomorphic activity, cottonwood

recruitment and the recovery of riparian-dependent wildlife, salmon and other native fish. The proposal

also has strong support of agencies within the Yakima River Basin.

The proposal presented was well organized and informative. The ISRP strongly supports such

investigations of riparian ecosystems and the development of remedial measures to restore productive

riparian habitats. Costs for the proposal are modest and the study will be completed in FY04.

Project ID: 25013

Restore Riparian Corridor at Tapteal Bend, Lower Yakima River

Sponsor: Tapteal Greenway

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $160,500

3YR Estimate: $177,000

Short Description: Stabilize streambank along about 500 feet of riparian area at RM 8 of the Lower

Yakima River and acquire adjacent island habitat to provide contiguous habitat protection along both sides

of the channel.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable, adequate response provided. This high visibility project has excellent potential as a

demonstration and education project. It could also contribute to improving water quality in the lower river.

The Tapteal Greenway, a non-profit conservation organization, purchased the 2.5-acre parcel with the

intended purpose of using it as a demonstration site for streambank restoration and environmental

education. Riverbank stability was severely degraded in the 1996 flood and riparian habitat had previously

been destroyed. This proposal’s objectives are to design, implement, and maintain a bio-engineered,

streambank restoration project and conduct long-term monitoring of the restoration work. Proposed tasks

include barbs to capture silt and deflect flow, roughened rock or log toes, riparian buffer (willow, ground

covers), soil reinforcement, and bank grading for severe cutbanks. Photo-point monitoring and plot

sampling would gauge the effectiveness and success of the restoration project. Acquisition of an adjacent,

undisturbed island with cottonwood galleries would serve to expand the protective buffer to the river

corridor and provide opportunity to re-connect a cut-off side channel to the river. This site is an important

part of the movement corridor for migrant salmonids and provides good resting, rearing, and brood areas.

These land parcels and the proposed restoration effort would provide an opportunity for public involvement

and increase public awareness of watershed problems and solutions within the lower basin.

CBFWA Review Comments:

The education outreach and demonstration potential for this project are very high. We recommend

coordination with the Yakama Nation cultural resources in implementing the education phase of the

project. The final design and costs for this project have not been determined. Habitat restoration should

not be funded until the plan is developed.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

79

Project ID: 25062

Growth Rate Modulation in Spring Chinook Salmon Supplementation

Sponsor: NMFS

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $345,088

3YR Estimate: $345,088

Short Description: Develop hatchery rearing protocols to reduce excessive production of early maturing

male chinook salmon, improve smolt-to-adult survival and reduce negative ecological impacts of hatchery

fish on wild fish.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable for three years. Future funding contingent upon reporting of results. The response provided

outyear budget information, thus addressing the one concern in the review. This is an excellent proposal

with a refreshing presentation of supporting data and experimental design. This is important work that also

appears well supported by the Yakama Nation. This project is to examine early maturation of males -

precocious males, mini-jacks. Fast growth is likely decreasing the time to maturation. They are looking

into the link between high growth rate in autumn to early maturation. The goal is to develop a template for

rearing conditions conducive to slower maturation rate. If successful, they hope the Yakama Nation will do

full production tests.

Project ID: 199803300

Restore Upper Toppenish Watershed

Sponsor: YN

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $268,517

3YR Estimate: $846,617

Short Description: Moderate flow regime in Toppenish Creek by increasing the retentiveness of natural

soil water storage areas, such as headwater meadows and floodplains, following prioritized plan generated

by FY98-99 watershed assessment.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable, but in future submittals and in the statement of work to BPA they should include milestones with

specific measurable goals. The response was marginal and the proposal was not up to the standards of the

other Yakama Nation habitat proposals. This project is closely related to the project 199705300. It

provides movement toward “proper functioning system” (PFS is a checklist based on physical

characteristics and vegetation). They use this checklist to prioritize and identify restoration actions.

Anecdotally, a culvert replacement in this watershed showed significant steelhead spawning after one year.

The program appears to have many strengths, including the expansion from the Satus Creek restoration

efforts and emphasis on monitoring. So it is very generally credible that there is a need, and that the

proposed actions address it.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

80

Project ID: 199901300

Ahtanum Creek Watershed Assessment

Sponsor: YN

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $235,093

3YR Estimate: $765,093

Short Description: Conduct a watershed assessment in the agricultural portion of the Ahtanum Creek

watershed to complete assessment of the entire watershed, facilitate protection and restoration of salmon,

steelhead, bull trout.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable, but in future submittals and in the statement of work to BPA they should include milestones

specifically a date when the assessment is going to be done. The response was marginal and the proposal

was not up to the standards of the other Yakama Nation habitat proposals.

Project ID: 199405900

Yakima Basin Environmental Education

Sponsor: BOR

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $130,000

3YR Estimate: $397,000

Short Description:

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The independent evaluation conducted in 1997 was very positive and it is clear from that

document and the curriculum details provided that the project is an effort that all involved should be proud

of. We suggest that another evaluation be conducted near the end of this funding cycle to document the

effect of changes in the program and in the expectations of participants. A survey of non-participants

should be conducted to identify possible barriers to participation and a plan for reducing those barriers

should be proposed in future funding requests.

Project ID: 199603501

Satus Watershed Restoration Project

Sponsor: YN

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $352,966

3YR Estimate: $1,111,691

Short Description: This is an ongoing watershed scale restoration project intended to protect and enhance

habitat for the native threatened summer steelhead stock, and a variety of cultural and natural resources.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. A generally adequate response helped reviewers more fully assess the project, although the query

regarding grazing enclosures was essentially unanswered. It is clear that project activities have succeeded

in reduction and management of grazing; the review panel now looks forward, in future reviews, to seeing
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

81

those results translated into additional restoration of fish habitat and fish numbers. Again we urge project

personnel to increase activity in publishing and presenting results of the project.

The "new cost share opportunities" that would increase the proposed budget over that forecast were

satisfactorily identified.

Project ID: 199705300

Toppenish-Simcoe Instream Flow Restoration and Assessment

Sponsor: YN

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $306,830

3YR Estimate: $736,830

Short Description: Identify extent of anadromous populations, identify land status, characterize habitat

and discharge; model irrigation use; restore instream flows by land lease or purchase and/or water

substitution; modify irrigation diversions to mimic natural runoff.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The response was brief but adequately covered the few issues in question. This proposal to

increase instream flow has potential to increase steelhead production. The 2,000 acres in this irrigation unit

are mostly in tribal trust. The project seems consistent with subbasin summary and NMFS BiOp.

Project ID: 25021

Implement Actions to Reduce Water Temperatures in the Teanaway Basin

Sponsor: WSDE

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $338,000

3YR Estimate: $652,025

Short Description: Implement actions to reduce stream temperatures, reduce suspended sediment, meet

water quality standards and improve salmonid habitat. Actions implemented will include irrigation

improvements, tree planting, bank stabilization and road improvements.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The proposal is well written and is especially good in that it includes provision for analysis of the

data collected. This is a continuation of an earlier project to provide additional instream flow by increasing

irrigation efficiency, stabilizing streambanks, etc. The Teanaway was one of the top producers of spring

chinook, steelhead, and coho in the Yakima watershed. It has good restoration potential.

No response was required but questions raised by ISRP were addressed. Details are lacking in the response

such as where and how the "widely distributed" focus sheets will be distributed, for whom the "field tours

in the future" will be conducted, and how subcontractors "will be fully informed about all the activities".

These shortcomings do not seriously compromise the benefits of the project.

CBFWA Review Comments:

After consultation with CBFWA reviewers, the project sponsor has provided a modified budget through

reducing the number of culvert replacements (USFS responsibility) and eliminated rock barbs. There is a

difference of opinion in this area whether rock barbs should be used or reconnection with the flood plain is

better approach. The project sponsor will attempt to address those concerns before proceeding with those

actions.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

82

Rock Creek

Project ID: 25068

Rock Creek watershed road and riparian corridor improvement project.

Sponsor: YN, KC, BCC

Subbasin: Rock Creek

2002 Request: $96,500

3YR Estimate: $289,500

Short Description: Perform habitat restoration to stabilize mainstem Rock Creek channel, enhance riparian

corridor vegetation characteristics, and improve the road network throughout the subbasin to benefit fish

and wildlife.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The objective of this proposal is to restore habitat in Rock Creek by stabilizing the main channel,

enhancing riparian corridor vegetation, and improving the road network throughout the subbasin (proposal

for 3 yeas, FY02-FY04). At present there are no BPA funds direct to fish and wildlife in the sub-basin.

This proposal is requesting $96,500 for each year and has a cost sharing commitment of $50,000 from the

co-sponsors.

Habitat conditions for fish and wildlife in Rock Creek sub-basin have been severely compromised by over

a century of land use and human development. The 1996 flood event compounded these problems causing

extensive damage to the mainstem channel and several tributaries. The basin presently supports steelhead

trout (Mid Columbia River ESU), fall bright chinook and coho salmon, and rainbow trout.

While the proposal is not particularly informative of the habitat area and extent of work proposed, the

presentation to the ISRP clearly demonstrated a severely disrupted environment that will require substantial

work. The modest funds requested for FY02 will accomplish relatively little compared to the apparent

scope of the problem, but it should be considered an initial investment in subbasin planning and recovery.

The work proposed includes a small bit of stream rehabilitation but is mostly rebuilding existing county

and Boise Cascade forest roads, an approach that has been shown to significantly reduce sediment delivery

to streams in other areas. A more complete proposal would include monitoring the effectiveness of fencing

to exclude livestock from recovering and restored areas and to evaluate the effectiveness of road repairs in

reducing sediment delivery to streams. Changes in erosion, channel shading, and stream temperature

should be documented.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

83

Mainstem Columbia

Project ID: 25056

Conduct Watershed Assessments for Priority Watersheds on Private Lands in the Columbia Plateau

Sponsor: OWEB

Subbasin: Mainstem Columbia

2002 Request: $1,259,725

3YR Estimate: $1,439,175

Short Description: This project will coordinate the development of watershed assessments throughout the

Columbia Plateau. The funding will provide contracting monies for the completion of watershed

assessments throughout the Oregon portion of the province.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. Basing project prioritization and program strategies on a watershed assessment is a sound

scientific approach long advocated by the ISRP. However, this is an expensive approach, although good

matching from OWEB. But this is merely funding infrastructure that groups elsewhere have already started

on their own. Evaluation of priority for this proposal is based upon politics - not science.

The review team had several concerns for the sponsor to consider that do not require a response to the

ISRP: will these assessments on private lands be compatible with existing analyses already conducted on

federal lands? If not, how will differences be eliminated to ensure seamless integration? How will quality

control be maintained with so many entities conducting assessments?

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project should be funded for the John Day as a High Priority (less than $500,000). For other subbasins

the proposal should be considered a Recommended Action. OWEB needs to identify and acknowledge the

existing efforts that have been completed on private land and should be well coordinated with existing local

efforts.

Project ID: 25060

Burbank Sloughs and Mainstem Columbia River Shoreline/Side Channel/Wetland Habitat Restoration

Sponsor: USFWS

Subbasin: Mainstem Columbia

2002 Request: $546,000

3YR Estimate: $776,000

Short Description: Remove berms, reconnect side channels & wetlands to river & establish flow, &

enhance shallow-water areas to provide rearing, resting & predator avoidance habitat adjacent to the main

channel Columbia River in the Burbank Sloughs Area, Pasco, Washington.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This would serve as a pilot project to restore wintering/rearing habitat for chinook and

secondarily steelhead in seven sloughs. The proposal was clearly written with helpful photos and the

response showed a great deal of effort and fine-tuning that reviewers feel should lead to a stronger project.

This effort will be successful for anadromous fish rearing if such habitat is currently in short supply and if

the new habitat does not increase predation (especially piscine). That issue was mentioned in both proposal

and presentation and reasons for expecting low predation rates were discussed in the response. Although

somewhat on the fence, the ISRP was persuaded by the response on predation. CBFWA raises this issue as

well and is less convinced. This issue deserves more attention, and the implementation option described in

CBFWA’s comments warrants consideration.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

84

The response addressed other reviewer concerns. A strong M&E protocol was described, and a wellqualified scientist was appropriately added to the project. However, monitoring appears to be too broad -

e.g. invertebrates - without all elements justified as to how they will of value in assessment of project

success or failure.

CBFWA Review Comments:

The CBFWA reviewers are very concerned about the predator presence in this area. The project sponsor

did not convince the reviewers that enough groundwork had been completed to determine that the response

proposed from this project would be accomplished. The Anadromous Fish Caucus sees a high value (High

Priority) in performing the pre-implementation feasibility study of this project with flow, temperature, and

predator/prey analysis. CBFWA would like to see the results of the feasibility study prior to funding the

implementation of reconnecting the slough.

Project ID: 199009200

Protect and Enhance the Wanaket Wildlife Mitigation Area.

Sponsor: CTUIR

Subbasin: Mainstem Columbia

2002 Request: $223,465

3YR Estimate: $679,824

Short Description: Protect, enhance, and mitigate wildlife and wildlife habitats impacted by the McNary

Hydroelectric Project

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This proposal identifies its significance. This proposal is for routine continuation of operation

and maintenance on 2750 acres. Irrigation of wetlands must be continued indefinitely causing concern

about electricity costs in tight energy markets and availability of water in drought years. During the

presentation they demonstrated that they had a plan for alternative activities if power prices become

prohibitive. M&E is adequate for Tier 1 level monitoring. However, evaluation and monitoring efforts

should be strengthened by specifying how much improvement/change in target species is to be

accomplished and how the changes will be documented (see ISRP general comments at beginning of this

report). Cost is relatively high compared to other areas perhaps due to irrigation costs for wetlands.

Project ID: 25011

Assess Riparian Condition through Spectrometric Imaging Of Riparian Vegetation

Sponsor: ODEQ

Subbasin: Mainstem Columbia

2002 Request: $175,000

3YR Estimate: $360,000

Short Description: Remote multispectral imaging will be used to document riparian vegetation for all

Columbia Plateau Province lands within Oregon. DEQ will use the data to establish TMDLs to improve

water quality for fish and aquatic life, including ESA-listed species.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This project will use remote multispectral imaging to collect data on riparian vegetative

attributes. The data will be used to establish TMDLs for all Columbia Plateau Province lands within

Oregon.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

85

The response addressed most concerns of the ISRP. Additional details in the response would have been

useful in justifying this project. Some examples where details are missing follow:

• "Multispectral imaging has proven to be the most effective method of assessing current riparian

conditions." Where is the proof of this statement documented?

• "The data will either be made available for download via the internet, or distributed on CD." How will

the internet availability be advertised and what is the procedure for requesting a CD?

• "...the level of uncertainty has proven to be relatively small in past efforts. In addition, the stream

temperature models are calibrated to instream measurements, further validating the riparian

classification data." Relatively small compared to what? What are the results of the previous

validation? Has the adequacy of the validation been evaluated and summarized? If so, where?

• "It is believed that such robust water quality modeling ... attain adequate protection of aquatic

species.'" Where is the evidence that this belief is justified?

CBFWA Review Comments:

CBFWA supports applying this project in the John Day subbasin as High Priority and as a Recommended

Action in the other subbasins. Once the technique has been proven, a presentation should be made to

CBFWA to demonstrate its application. It is important that the project sponsors coordinate with others

that are applying these types of analysis techniques (i.e.. LCREP). Also, all assessment information

generated from this project needs to be provided to Streamnet and other data repositories for regional use.

Project ID: 25097

Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Assessment Project (SSHIAP)

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Mainstem Columbia

2002 Request: $522,710

3YR Estimate: $945,260

Short Description: Project will provide routed & segmented hydrolayer, and collate and synthesize data on

19 aquatic habitat variables & pesticide data over an estimated 59,000 miles of streams in 8 salmonidbearing subbasins in the WA portion of this Province.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The response addressed the major issues raised by the ISRP in an effective manner. The purpose

of this project is to assemble, assimilate, and expand upon existing data sets. A comprehensive habitat

information base across the Province will be provided. The proponents provide a strong case for their

integration with other habitat managers and agencies and show a strong awareness of the need for habitat

related databases in regional projects and programs. The response provided evidence that other groups in

the Columbia Plateau support and will use results from this activity. The result of an independent

evaluation of similar efforts in western Washington was provided in the response. The evaluation was very

positive.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

86

Crab Creek

Project ID: 199106100

Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area (SLWA)

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Crab Creek

2002 Request: $290,238

3YR Estimate: $845,512

Short Description: Protect, increase, and maintain a viable sharp-tailed grouse meta population, reestablish a viable sage grouse population, increase mule deer use of the project site, and enhance

shrubsteppe habitat for shrub-steppe obligate species.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The rationale for this project is tied to protection and restoration of sharp-tailed grouse. These

activities are related to a number of regional programs. The proposal provides much detail for monitoring

and evaluation indicating awareness of issues missing from many proposals but discovered by the WDFW

Crab Creek team. This is a very well prepared proposal that is thorough and comprehensive. Operation

and maintenance costs for the area are about $15/A/yr for 2002, which is about the same that the YN

estimates for their land management operation and maintenance.

Project ID: 25042

Pygmy Rabbit Recovery - Captive Breeding

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Crab Creek

2002 Request: $220,914

3YR Estimate: $461,118

Short Description: The project involves captive husbandry and captive breeding of wild-caught

Washington pygmy rabbits, as well as augmentation of wild populations in the Crab Creek Subbasin with

captive reared rabbits.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The response satisfactorily documented that the Washington population is an ESU, that the

experimental animals of Idaho origin cannot stray into the Washington population, and that there will be

adequate supervision of students. The status of the Washington population does appear critical, justifying

research into captive breeding.

Overall prospects for success of the recovery effort are still in doubt, because, they do not appear to have a

handle on the root cause for the continuing decline or the characteristics of needed habitat. The response

acknowledges that the limiting factors are unknown. If the root causes of decline are not addressed, a

captive breeding program may be a misplaced effort. The ongoing decline of the remnant population in

WA, and the evident ineffectiveness of the habitat work, leads reviewers to suspect that the actual critical

habitat has not been identified, and this should be the highest priority. To put the matter in perspective, it

would be good if the proposers could document that there is a real commitment of significant resources to

habitat acquisition, protection and restoration, and to research to figure out why this WA population is

doing so poorly compared to the ID population. The ongoing habitat purchases or protection projects seem

largely to just be riding the coattails of bird recovery programs with better understood habitat requirements.

A captive breeding focus could divert resources away from other efforts that logically should be as high or

higher priority for this population; the investment in captive breeding could become disproportionate.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

87

Project ID: 25043

Northern Leopard Frog Distribution and Habitat Association

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Crab Creek

2002 Request: $41,754

3YR Estimate: $156,354

Short Description: The proposed project examines the breeding distribution of northern leopard frogs, and

breeding success and recruitment in association with introduced fish, bullfrogs and reservoir inundation.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable with low priority. This project proposes to determine the breeding distribution of the northern

leopard frog, an endangered species in Washington. It further proposes to assess the effects of reservoir

inundation and introduced fish and bullfrogs on breeding leopard frogs. The response was nicely prepared

and helpful. It adequately addressed the ISRP concerns and indicates that researchers will indeed be able to

separate effects of inundation from those of introduced predators.

Project ID: 199404400

Enhance, protect, and maintain shrubsteppe habitat on the Sagebrush Flat Wildlife Area (SFWA)

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Crab Creek

2002 Request: $908,375

3YR Estimate: $1,407,100

Short Description: Protect, and enhance shrub-steppe habitat necessary to maintian and expand viable

populations of pygmy rabbits, sage grouse, sharp-tailed grouse and other shrub-steppe obligate species.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The response is adequate. The rationale for this project is tied to protection and restoration of

pygmy rabbits, sage grouse, and sharp-tailed grouse. These activities are related to a number of regional

programs. However, the priority of this project does not appear urgent.

The proposal provides much detail for monitoring and evaluation indicating awareness of issues missing

from many proposals. Additionally, the ISRP recommends that terrestrial sampling on Fish and Wildlife

Program lands follow a common sampling method and some common data collection protocols across the

four States involved to enhance monitoring and evaluation of terrestrial systems on subbasin and basin

scales. Perhaps the National Resources Inventory sampling procedures and data collection protocols would

serve the region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews.

The response included better description of budget items, but the cost still seems high compared to other

projects.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

88

ISRP Agrees with CBFWA: ISRP Fundable and CBFWA High

Priority, but Crediting Issue with BPA

CBFWA identified these proposals as potentially High Priority projects pending crediting resolution with

BPA and the Council. The ISRP notes that many of these proposals offer significant protection and

benefits to listed fish species, in addition to wildlife benefits.

Project ID: 25003

FORREST RANCH ACQUISITION

Sponsor: CTWSRO

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $4,207,659

3YR Estimate: $4,510,009

Short Description: Acquire approximately 4,295 acres of land, 12.2 miles of streams, 25.2 cfs of senior

water rights, and structures on the Middle Fork and upper mainstem John Day Rivers known as the Forrest

Ranch.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: BPA Crediting? - High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This project is apparently funded under the High Priority Process. This project was reviewed

through the high priority initiative. It remains high priority. This is an excellent proposal making a

convincing case that acquisition of this land and accompanying water rights would make a large

contribution to spawning and anadromous fish habitat on the upper middle fork of the John Day River. The

risks to habitat of not funding the project are high. Excellent documentation and illustrations are provided.

The monitoring and evaluation plan should be consistent with the guidelines given in the introduction to

this report.

CBFWA Review Comments:

The purchase of this property was funded through the High Priority Process.

Project ID: 25004

Acquisition of Wagner Ranch

Sponsor: CTWSRO

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $2,669,717

3YR Estimate: $2,737,717

Short Description: Aquire Wagner Ranch to provide a contiguous corridor of fish and wildlife habitat

along the lower John Day River.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: BPA Crediting? - High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This project is funded through the High Priority Initiative. See review comments from the

ISRP’s recent High Priority Review. The monitoring and evaluation plan should be consistent with the

guidelines given in the introduction to this report.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Purchase of this property will provide opportunities for riparian improvements along 10.2 contiguous

miles of mainstem river frontage (area serves as a migration corridor for chinook). Grazing rights would

be included in the purchase. The property purchase was funded through the High Priority Process.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

89

Project ID: 25086

Purchase Perpetual Conservation Easement on Holliday Ranch and Crown Ranch Riparian Corridors and

Uplands

Sponsor: ODFW

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $5,459,520

3YR Estimate: $5,485,320

Short Description: Fence 17.7 miles of mainstem John Day River and tributaries, and protect 15,532 acres

of uplands two miles east of John Day, Oregon under perpetual conservation easement to improve habitat

and protect steelhead spawning grounds and big game winter range.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: BPA Crediting? - High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. High priority. This project received an “A” category and was recommended for funding without

reservation. The site visit confirmed and enhanced the conclusion that this acquisition provides many

benefits to fish and wildlife. In addition to the conservation benefits described in the proposal, this project

provides an excellent example of the types of win-win solutions to restoration problems that are possible

through good working relations with landowners, and through the development of incentives that make

sense both in terms of conservation goals and the economic goals of the landowner. The project is a

complicated mix of actions and incentives that make both biological and economic sense. This project will

achieve far-reaching demonstration benefits to other landowners of the positive outcomes possible from

restoration actions. There is a limited window of opportunity to for this project, dependent on the time

period of the option to buy. Delay in funding will risk the project. The costs of not funding this project

could be realized not only in conservation and restoration terms, but also in the erosion of trust and working

relationships between landowners and agencies responsible for resource recovery actions.

Additional information about the complexity of this project and its potential benefits were provided during

the site visit. The proposal should be modified to adequately represent the complexity of the project and the

magnitude of potential benefits. The ISRP visited the Holliday Ranch as part of the Columbia Plateau

South Site Visit on 8 May 2001. We were able to see the many conservation actions the landowners have

undertaken with assistance from regional resource managers. On-site discussions with the land owners and

resource managers from ODFW, CTWSR, and SWCD were informative and provided insights into the

biological benefits, as well as the important aspect of local landowner-resource manager relationship

benefits that would be gained from implementation of the Holliday Ranch perpetual easement. Many

ranchers in the area are familiar with the Holliday Ranch and its conservation activities and are waiting and

watching the process before deciding whether or not they will participate in similar programs.

Of particular note in the project, but not described in the proposal, is the large grazing allotment (~700

AUMs) that the Holliday family presently uses on forested public lands in the lower reaches of the

Strawberry Mountains, an area adjacent to a wilderness area. The family’s initial motivation for seeking

the perpetual easement was to reduce their use of and reliance on the grazing allotment by 80% in exchange

for purchase of the Crown Ranch property, which would provide them with summer pasture lands for their

cattle operation. This portion of the easement agreement was not described in the proposal, but the ISRP

feels it is an important part of the entire easement package.

The Holliday Ranch project also provides a number of other conservation contributions that include:

a. Self-contained cattle feedlot operation that passively captures and processes all waste materials.

b. A series of groundwater drains that improve efficiency of the cattle operation while simultaneously

delivering significant amounts of cooler-than-ambient summer water. This contribution should

significantly improve water quality and extend spring chinook spawning and rearing habitat in the

mainstem John Day River.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

90

c. Installation of 3-4 instream irrigation diversion structures designed and installed by the landowner. We

observed this unique diversion structure that is used in place of push-up dams to provide the landowner

with reliable irrigation diversion. The structure provides natural upstream and downstream passage

conditions for adult and juvenile salmonids.

d. Historically, the Crown Ranch (now owned by the Carter family) and the Holliday Ranch were owned by

ancestors of the present Holliday family. The holdings, which involved several pieces of land, were

physically split into the Crown and Holliday Ranches. A map of the two ranches today (not provided with

proposal) would show a checkerboard appearance across the landscape. Combining the two ranches as

proposed in the perpetual easement agreement would consolidate the various pieces into a single land unit

enhancing its management for both agricultural and conservation goals.

e. Maintenance of fences for protections of riparian zones would be the responsibility of the Holiday

Ranch.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Conversion of a USFS grazing allotment to nonuse is now included in the proposal and the estimated cost

of conversion is not known at this time. Although this will not affect the FY2002 budget the outyear

budgets may increase.

Project ID: 200002300

Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Horn Butte (Philippi Property)

Sponsor: ODFW

Subbasin: Umatilla

2002 Request: $50,000

3YR Estimate: $1,465,000

Short Description: Protect and enhance shrub-steppe and native bunch grass habitat in the Horn Butte area

to mitigate for wildlife impacts by the Columbia River Federal hydropower system.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: BPA Crediting? - High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The responses to ISRP concerns were very complete and included a high level of attention to

details on evaluation of the property for acquisition, future O&M, and future M&E. The response should

be made part of the original proposal and serve as a model for future proposals for acquisition of lands for

the primary benefit of wildlife and uplands vegetation. The ISRP recommends acquisition of this property.

One of the initial recommendations of the ISRP on this proposal was that the proponents consider

cooperating with the EPA EMAP to ensure compatibility of wildlife and vegetation sampling across large

landscapes (counties, states, or combinations of states) in the same manner that the Oregon Plan for Salmon

and Watersheds is using EPA EMAP procedures for monitoring of aquatic resources. The proponents

commented that the Western EMAP does not have a terrestrial component. This may be true for the current

Western EMAP, but certainly the original EMAP had a large terrestrial component. The ISRP is not

specifically recommending the EMAP terrestrial sampling plan. Rather, we are more interested in ensuring

that sampling on these large blocks of Fish and Wildlife Program lands be compatible with a larger scale

terrestrial sampling plan and that data collected will be useful for monitoring and evaluation at the subbasin

and Columbia Basin levels.

We appreciate the proponents’ research into the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s terrestrial

monitoring program called the National Resources Inventory. Apparently there are more than one million

sampling points across the United States where land cover information is gathered. The proponents

propose to evaluate this sampling program and the possibility of coordinating mapping locations with

established NRI points and we strongly recommend that they do so. Data on the Philippi part of the Horn

Butte property would be at an intensified finer scale than the planned national survey, but compatibility of

sampling methods and data collection protocols would enhance the ability of the proponents to compare

their property to other areas on a larger scale and to provide information to monitoring and evaluation at the
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

91

subbasin, basin, and national levels. In short, the ISRP is not pushing the EMAP terrestrial sampling plan.

We are recommending that the terrestrial sampling on Fish and Wildlife Program lands follow a common

sampling method and some common data collection protocols across the four States involved to enhance

monitoring and evaluation of terrestrial systems on subbasin and basin scales. Perhaps the National

Resources Inventory sampling procedures and data collection protocols would serve the region well.

There seems little that this purchase will do for summer steelhead (extirpated) until passage barriers

(irrigation structures) are removed in lower reaches. Perhaps that problem should be addressed first.

Project ID: 200020116

Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Horn Butte Area (BAIC Tract)

Sponsor: ODFW

Subbasin: Plateau Southeast

2002 Request: $5,390,000

3YR Estimate: $5,630,000

Short Description: Protect and enhance the BAIC Tract in the Horn Butte area, which includes 22,642

acres of shrub-steppe and native bunchgrass, to mitigate for wildlife impacts from the Federal Columbia

River Hydropower System.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: BPA Crediting? - High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. Purchase of this property was approved in previous reviews, but funds were redirected to other

approved projects when negotiations with landowners broke down due to a legal issue that has now been

resolved. The ISRP continues to agree that this property would be of significant long-term benefit to

wildlife.

References to habitat evaluation and survey procedures should be given. Washington ground squirrel

surveys procedures should be given in detail. Vegetation and wildlife surveys sites should be selected in

cooperation with the EPA EMAP survey procedures developed by the EPA office in Corvallis, Oregon and

valid Tier I or II monitoring procedures developed for target wildlife species (see the introduction to this

report). Plans for O&M, monitoring and evaluation, etc. should be consistent with Project #200002300

(Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Horn Butte (Philippi Property).

Project ID: 25078

Acquire Anadromous Fish Habitat in the Selah Gap to Union Gap Flood Plain, Yakima River Basin,

Washington

Sponsor: BOR

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $3,000,000

3YR Estimate: $9,000,000

Short Description: Acquire essential anadromous fish habitat (flood plains, riparian zones, wetlands, and

water rights) from Selah Gap to Union Gap "Critical River Reach" of the Yakima River Basin, Washington.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: BPA Crediting? - High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The objectives are consistent with regional programs and are a high priority. The proposal is well

written and is well coordinated with groups and agencies. It seemed significant that the basin is already

under the YPBWEB water enhancement project, so lots of resources applied and available. The reviewers

liked the idea of an urban (semi-urban?) demonstration project to show that a community can be proud of,

and profit from, the river that flows through it rather than simply thinking of it as a conduit.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

92

Project ID: 199206200

Yakama Nation - Riparian/Wetlands Restoration

Sponsor: YN

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $1,750,000

3YR Estimate: $5,250,000

Short Description: Continue implementation of YN Wetlands/Riparian Restoration Project by protecting

and restoring native floodplain habitats along anadromous fish-bearing waterways in the agricultural area

of the Yakama Reservation (~2,500 acres/year).

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: BPA Crediting? - High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. Most of this ($1.25 mil) is to acquire land at ca. 2-3,000 acres annually, with a goal of 27,000

acres. O & M and M & E are included, and the project offers good cost share from a variety of sources.

From the tour, the review panel was impressed with the results. Excellent success with reestablishing

bluebunch wheat grass in what seems to be an innovative, highly effective and popular program. The tour

made it clear why it is important to have the ability to manage large tracts of land because that enables

effective water management (floodwater delivery). This looks like a strong program.

Project ID: 25020

Acquire Rattlesnake Slope Addition

Sponsor: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $3,542,500

3YR Estimate: $3,542,500

Short Description: Acquire 11,000 acres in the Yakima subbasin to protect key shrub-steppe habitat, link

protected lands, assist with threatened and endangered species recovery, and facilitate comprehensive

management over a large area.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: BPA Crediting? - High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The proposal makes a good general case for the need to acquire additional high-quality shrubsteppe lands, but a much weaker specific case for the purchase of the RSA. Others speakers (TNC-Betsy)

indicated that this property was specified in one of the planning documents as a high priority area. A

WDFW speaker (Don) also verified that the area is high priority type, but had not been specifically

identified. In the response loop, a letter of support from TNC was supplied that bumps the priority of this

up a notch. The property is adjacent to existing wildlife conservation areas, including the Hanford and the

WDFW’s Sunnyside WMA. Intent is to transfer the land to WDFW, but that set of steps has not been

agreed upon. Acquisition of this deep-soil shrubsteppe habitat supports a number of target species. The

cost of the property appears reasonable at approximately $350/acre. Livestock grazing should be allowed

to the extent that it does not interfere with habitat protection and expansion for sensitive, threatened, and

endangered species.

Additionally, the ISRP recommends that terrestrial sampling on Fish and Wildlife Program lands follow a

common sampling method and some common data collection protocols across the four States involved to

enhance monitoring and evaluation of terrestrial systems on subbasin and basin scales. Perhaps the

National Resources Inventory sampling procedures and data collection protocols would serve the region

well. See the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

93

Project ID: 25002

Protect, enhance, and maintain habitat on the Sunnyside Wildlife Area to benefit wildlife and fish

assemblages.

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $418,874

3YR Estimate: $1,215,706

Short Description: Restore, protect and enhance native floodplain wetland and riparian habitats and

shrubsteppe uplands in the lower Yakima River Valley.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: BPA Crediting? - High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The project is closely related to subbasin goals and objectives, BPA mitigation, and other

projects in the area. The monitoring and evaluation section is quite detailed and could serve as a model for

other projects.

Project ID: 200002500

Eagle Lakes Ranch Acquisition And Restoration

Sponsor: USFWS

Subbasin: Mainstem Columbia

2002 Request: $188,900

3YR Estimate: $1,278,900

Short Description: Protect and restore proper function to shrub steppe and wetland habitats to offset losses

due to hydropower development on the Columbia River system.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: BPA Crediting? - High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The project would fund approximately 30% of the fee acquisition and easement purchase for

shrubsteppe, basalt cliff, and wetland complex. Out-year funding is mainly for restoration and monitoring.

The response adequately addressed the ISRP’s request for more detailed description of monitoring and

restoration objectives and methods. This response provided good summary information and is a good

example of how the response loop should work.

The ISRP recommends that terrestrial sampling on Fish and Wildlife Program lands follow a common

sampling method and some common data collection protocols across the four States involved to enhance

monitoring and evaluation of terrestrial systems on subbasin and basin scales. Perhaps the National

Resources Inventory sampling procedures and data collection protocols would serve the region well. See

the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

94

Project ID: 25001

Acquire Sharp-tailed Grouse Habitat at the Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Crab Creek

2002 Request: $237,053

3YR Estimate: $274,953

Short Description: Purchase 259 ha (640 ac) of shrubsteppe habitat currently bordered on three sides by

the SLWA in order to increase and maintain a viable sharp-tailed grouse population on and/or near the

SLWA..

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: BPA Crediting? - High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable, High Priority

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This is a straightforward proposal for one-time funding to acquire 640 acres bordered on three

sides by the Wildlife Area. The acquisition of this property would complement the work proposed in

project 199106100. Specifically, the project is tied to protection and restoration of sharp-tailed grouse.

These activities are related to a number of regional programs. Cost of about $500/A seems reasonable.

This proposal looks fundable with a medium priority, comparable in priority to new YN land acquisition

proposals.

Project ID: 25092

RESTORATION OF HEALTHY WATERSHED TO PALOUSE RIVER DRAINAGE IN IDAHO

Sponsor: IDFG

Subbasin: Palouse

2002 Request: $200,200

3YR Estimate: $9,730,200

Short Description: To restore degraded habitat and protect natural habitat in the Palouse River drainage in

Idaho thereby improving water quality and quantity throughout the drainage.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Recommendation: BPA Crediting? - High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree if funded in part

ISRP Final Comments:

Fund in part; fund the instream assessment and planning efforts only. Do not fund restoration activities

until a plan is in place that includes a statement of expected benefits in terms of native fish or mitigation. A

response was provided that was in agreement with this recommendation.

The PI proposes to hire a person to initiate planning, identify problems, locate potential project sites, and

potential cooperators. They also propose to begin habitat improvement activities in Deep Creek. The PI is

qualified to address the objectives. Objectives for the first year are relatively clear, but objectives in

subsequent years are very general – specificity is to be defined during the first year. The standard approach

to watershed assessment, prescription, rehabilitation, monitoring and evaluation is required, based on

established templates as done for the Hood River and elsewhere, and in relation to overall restoration

priorities in the province.

The budget request is large, so it seems prudent to ask for a detailed proposal at the end of the first year to

describe known needs and projected benefits from the investment.

CBFWA Review Comments:

The outyear budgets are excessive. Implementation plan needs to be developed prior to funding

implementation activities. Fund Objective 1 ($100,200). Implementation funding should be sought once

the implementation plan has been developed.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

95

Project ID: 25032

Wenas Wildlife Area Inholding Acquisitions

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $706,143

3YR Estimate: $716,143

Short Description: Acquire 800 acres of inholding lands within the Wenas Wildlife Area, including 1.25

miles of Umtanum Creek. Lands are under immediate threat of development. Includes riparian and Shrub

steppe habitat, provides landscape connectivity.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Recommendation: BPA Crediting? - High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree if funded in part

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable in part for the one-year acquisition but do not fund the outyear costs until they are justified. The

response addressed the issues of justification, immediate need, species of interest, prioritization, and the

threat of detrimental development, and provided useful information in maps and photos. Still, however,

nothing in proposal, presentation, or response helped reviewers assess whether funds are better spent

acquiring these inholdings as opposed to acquiring other parcels of shrub steppe habitat, or re-directly

completely. The two parcels on Umtanum Creek (Hunt and Jordan) seem highest priority, and the Hunt

property seems justified as the highest priority acquisition (if prioritization is needed).

These acquisitions could represent significant protection of BPA’s investment in the Wenas Wildlife Area.

BPA has invested heavily in the ongoing Wenas Wildlife Area project, with extensive shrub steppe

replanting efforts undertaken. The loss of these inholdings to development could undermine this ongoing

effort by BPA. Important fish and wildlife habitats would be protected with this project. All parcels are

completely undeveloped and contain excellent quality shrub-steppe and riparian habitats, with diverse

species assemblages represented.

The parcels include approximately 1.25 miles of Umtanum Creek, an anadromous fish-bearing stream

known to contain steelhead, chinook and coho salmon, and red-band rainbow trout. Umtanum Creek

represents one of the best examples of intact native fish communities in the Yakima basin, wherein exotic

species are absent, and the native rainbow, sculpin, dace community dominates. The purchase would also

protect the lower reaches of Roza Creek, which holds populations of resident redband rainbow trout.

Significant shrub-steppe and riparian habitats would be protected in this project, and the long-term integrity

of a large proportion of the Wenas Wildlife Area would be ensured.

Big game habitat quality is high, as deer and elk winter and transitional range, and habitat for bighorn

sheep (WDFW Big Game data). These lands provide critical habitats for many shrub steppe species,

including sage thrasher, sage sparrow, and shrikes. Landscape level habitat linkages between the U.S.

Army Yakima Training Center, and Cascades fringe shrub steppe habitats would be protected with these

acquisitions, including habitat for sage grouse. Beavers are very active on both Umtanum and Roza Creeks.

The ISRP recommends that terrestrial sampling on Fish and Wildlife Program lands follow a common

sampling method and some common data collection protocols across the four States involved to enhance

monitoring and evaluation of terrestrial systems on subbasin and basin scales. Perhaps the National

Resources Inventory sampling procedures and data collection protocols would serve the region well. See

the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews.

CBFWA Review Comments:

M&E will be included through the Wenas Wildlife Area work plan being funded under an ongoing project.

Information will be disseminated through the larger Wenas Wildlife Area work plan.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

96

ISRP Agrees with CBFWA: ISRP Fundable and CBFWA

Recommended Action

Project ID: 25027

An Assessment of Neotropical Migratory and Resident Bird-Habitat & Bird-Salmon Relationships in

Riparian Ecosystems in the Deschutes Subbasin

Sponsor: NHI

Subbasin: Deschutes

2002 Request: $113,670

3YR Estimate: $323,990

Short Description: Monitor riparian breeding bird community relative abundance and nest success in

relation to vegetation condition on streams in the process of or proposed for restoration, as well as on a

subset of streams with salmon carcass supplementation.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable (higher priority)

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This is a well-written proposal to monitor riparian bird communities in the Deschutes subbasin in

areas that have been restored or are in the process of restoration to establish aquatic-terrestrial links and to

test the hypotheses that riparian bird abundance is influenced by the size of anadromous fish runs. The

proposal has a comprehensive literature review and places the project relevance in regional context. The PI

appears well qualified to do the work and the association with NHI and their mapping capabilities is a plus.

The PI is also involved in several regional coordinated bird monitoring programs. The point count methods

appear justified and supported by other studies and assessments. The proposal includes a good discussion

of riparian habitat linkages to salmon. The most compelling aspect of the proposal is the proposed

experimental test of the salmon-riparian habitat relationship using salmon carcasses in paired supplemented

versus unsupplemented streams.

The response was thorough and adequately addressed the ISRP concerns. Investigators have presented a

clear project structure and analytical design. Budget should be augmented by $14.8k to include the first

year’s invertebrate sampling. As revised, this is a strong proposal that could provide useful information on

ecosystem interactions, which is needed in the basin.

The ISRP recommends that terrestrial sampling on Fish and Wildlife Program lands follow a common

sampling method and some common data collection protocols across the four States involved to enhance

monitoring and evaluation of terrestrial systems on subbasin and basin scales. Perhaps the National

Resources Inventory sampling procedures and data collection protocols would serve the region well. See

the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

97

Project ID: 25040

Collection of baseline measurements of flow, temperature, channel morphology, riparian condition, and

benthic macroinvertebrates, Trout Creek, Oregon

Sponsor: USGS

Subbasin: Deschutes

2002 Request: $239,000

3YR Estimate: $599,000

Short Description: Measurement of physical and ecological habitat conditions prior to an extensive

channel restoration project, thus enabling future quantitative evaluation of processes and conditions

affected by channel restoration

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The proponents adequately addressed the concerns of the ISRP. Briefly, this proposal is to

provide “...a mechanistic understanding of processes associated with a large channel-restoration project

(Tier 3 monitoring), which likely will result in substantial changes to channel and floodplain conditions.

As such, this project is generally outside the scope of project-level M&E typically associate with projects

such as #19802800.” Most of our concerns revolved around the question of the level of monitoring in this

project (Tier 3) and its relationship to Tier 1 and 2 monitoring.

A minor point on the design of the study is that the ISRP continues to recommend that channel morphology

be measured above as well as within or below the study reach to help show that any changes are due to the

restoration actions and not to other confounding factors (drought, flood, global warming, etc.). We do not

recommend that the study include measurements of benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages because natural

variation appears to be so high as to preclude meaningful analysis and interpretation of results.

The discussion of the need for this project and that proposed in #25016 (Birch Creek) seemed weak. We

recommend that Council consider whether both of these projects are needed.

Project ID: 25009

Assess Watershed Health and Coordinate Watershed Councils in Wasco County, Oregon

Sponsor: Wasco SWCD

Subbasin: Deschutes

2002 Request: $70,290

3YR Estimate: $202,490

Short Description: Project will provide for assessment of 5th-field watersheds using Oregon Watershed

Assessment Manual & will provide watershed council support to five watershed councils in Wasco County,

Oregon.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action, Do Not Fund (Objective 3 and Fifteenmile Creek

portion of Objective 5)

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. Response to details on watershed assessments is adequate. This project will complete watershed

assessments in every fifth-field watershed in Wasco County and will coordinate five watershed councils in

their development of watershed action plans. Standard methods will be used for each assessment. Specifics

are provided for the coordination of watershed councils. Watershed assessments and action plans will be

provided as input into the Hood and Deschutes Subbasin plans. To maximize the utility of the information

collected, we continue to recommend that the information in all documents be coordinated and presented in

the same format. Data will be entered into the Streamnet database. The budget is very reasonable.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

98

CBFWA Review Comments:

One component of this proposal is a request for an FTE to coordinate subbasin planning/assessments,

activities that are already performed by watershed councils. Reviewers suggest that the USDA should

fund the FTE. Objective 3 and the Fifteenmile Creek portion of Objective 5 are not recommended for

funding since these they are associated with the Columbia Gorge Province.

Project ID: 25075

Momitoring and Evaluation of Buck Hollow Hydrology

Sponsor: Wasco SWCD

Subbasin: Deschutes

2002 Request: $92,777

3YR Estimate: $115,871

Short Description: A project to monitor and evaluate the hydrologic function of Buck Hollow Creek after

the application of conservation management systems designed to reduce peak flows and increase low

summer flows.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable (higher priority)

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This proposal is to monitor the hydrologic function of Buck Hollow Creek and the conservation

results of full watershed restoration. The project will install instrumentation to monitor the watershed

response to environmental variables. The project offers an excellent opportunity for monitoring of the

effects of full watershed restoration on stream hydrology (see the introduction to this proposal) and to

understand its effect on anadromous fish. A response was not necessary (although our preliminary

comment suggested it), but the ISRP did appreciate the clarification that Wasco SWCD provided on some

minor points concerning the level of monitoring required. They propose appropriate Tier I level

monitoring based on a gauging station near the mouth of Buck Hollow watershed.

The proposal is of modest financial size and should help examine the relationship between environmental

variables, habitat restoration activities, and the assumption that such activities can reshape the hydrograph

to a more natural shape and phenology.

Project ID: 25065

Forward Looking Infrared Radiometry (FLIR) Thermal Imagery and Analysis of Tucannon River, Touchet

River, and Mill Creek (FY2002)with follow-on 2003-04

Sponsor: WA Ecology, WQP

Subbasin: Walla Walla

2002 Request: $231,000

3YR Estimate: $634,000

Short Description: Obtain thermal imagery, imagery analysis, and supporting instream data, to map areas

of thermal refugia and areas of heating in order to assess habitat condition and to provide data for

restoration efforts, particularly Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs).

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable technically, but the benefits of this technology to fish and wildlife and on-the-ground application

are not convincingly demonstrated. The technology (itself good, although not new) needs to be integrated

with a broader study of water temperatures in the basin, not as an independent study. Confirmation of

temperature models would be useful, for example (if funded this project might be coordinated with the

PNNL modeling project in the mainstem).
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

99

This proposal is to monitor and evaluate water temperatures in streams needed to develop temperature

regulations in three rivers of Southeast Washington, using primarily infrared imagery from airborne overflights. However, the proposal lacks sufficient information to be persuasive that it deserves funding in

competition with other worthwhile projects. The presentation did not provide a thorough explanation of

what the project could uniquely provide for actual data relevant to fish management.

The information to be gained from this project is likely to provide additional insight into dynamics of

stream temperature and relations to the surrounding landscape. This type of temperature monitoring could

be key to impact assessments into the future. The broad spatial scale could potentially coordinate much of

the on-the-ground temperature data collected by others. The methods are limited, however, because the

imagery results only will reflect stream surface temperature, and it produces only a snapshot of conditions

at the time the records are made. That snapshot needs to be carefully integrated with in situ temperature

measurements (now easier to do with inexpensive, miniature recorders) and the temperature requirements

of fish. The technology can be appropriately applied to specific questions concerning water temperature

dynamics troubling on-the-ground managers of the watershed restoration efforts, but these questions are not

clearly identified.

The ISRP reviewers were not persuaded by the combination of proposal, presentation, and response.

Project sponsors provided considerable discussion in response to ISRP concerns. The response did not,

however, provide arguments to overcome the reviewers initial concerns that the focus was on use of a

technology rather than viewing the technology as a valuable component of an integrated study of a problem

(temperature) important to fish. There is value to the data to be obtained, but in comparison to other needs

it may be relatively low. Although the character of the data to be obtained remains unclear, it could help to

identify temperature problems that presently are unknown, and it definitely has potential to show

stakeholders the location and magnitude of potential temperature problems in these systems. The detailed

response provided little to suggest that this project would add to useful information on limits to salmonid

production in this watershed that is not already known (or should be readily identified in a watershed

assessment process). If increasing temperatures due to climate change become (more of) an issue, perhaps

the federal government should support this level of monitoring. The questions on how this information

(rather than other temperature data more easily obtained) could be used on the ground, with examples, were

not adequately addressed.

On the plus side, the response put the scope of the FLIR work into context much better than the original

proposal. Clearer objectives and tasks were given. Temperature problems in the basin in relation to fish

thermal requirements were described by a cooperator, Glenn Mendel of WDFW. The utility of the data

collection for TMDL activities as well as fish management was described. Temperature data were

provided. Elements of the work, including the budget, were clarified as including more than just infra-red

overflights and providing data. The response included a listing of related projects. Resumes were provided.

It is clear that there is cost share with other programs of Washington DOE. The project could be an

important element of an overall program to manage the landscape to reduce water temperatures for

salmonids in the lower reaches of the subject waters, and later for other waters of the Columbia Plateau.

The added winter imagery, which came up in the oral presentation, is probably best deferred until the

summer patterns become clearer and the need for identifying specific groundwater input is more defined.

The ISRP’s initial comments that the authors essentially need to rewrite their proposal with a focus on how

this work may benefit efforts at salmonid restoration still stands. The ISRP still has concerns that the

technique is not sufficiently integrated with other work in the subbasin. In summary, this could be useful

work with benefit to fish and fundable if the project would show better coordination with other projects or

the technology were more fully integrated into other projects.

CBFWA Review Comments:

FLIR may provide a better understanding of the thermal characteristics of the watersheds. However, the

proposal was not organized well enough to describe the use of the equipment. Reviewers suggest that BPA

has the equipment to do this work and would be able to do it at a much lower cost. This appears to be a

worthwhile work. However, the associated projected costs are high and the work could be done for less.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

100

Project ID: 25030

Factors limiting the shrubsteppe raptor community in the Columbia Plateau Province of eastern

Washington

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Mainstem Columbia, Crab, and Yakima

2002 Request: $16,580

3YR Estimate: $16,580

Short Description: Assess habitat, prey, and contaminants of ferruginous hawks and golden eagles in

native habitats and provide recommendations on how to improve their rates of nest occupancy in the

Columbia Basin

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The response was marginal, and the priority (benefits to wildlife affected by the hydrosystem)

appears low. The project directly addresses issues related to raptors of concern. The proposal appears

sound and includes strong basic, but typical, raptor biology investigations. The proposal does a good job of

identifying possible causes for raptor decline -- winter mortality, lead poisoning, nesting habitat loss, etc.

However, the proposal is not for a study that could take advantage of some unique situations, settings,

timings, to disprove any of these possible factors. Instead, the proposal is designed to gather data and

perform correlations, and the results are intended to have direct practical application -- the identification

and elimination of mortality and contaminant sources.

Project ID: 25033

Evaluate Restoration Potential of Mainstem Habitat for Anadromous Salmonids in the Columbia and Snake

Rivers

Sponsor: PNNL

Subbasin: Mainstem Columbia

2002 Request: $314,392

3YR Estimate: $1,120,402

Short Description: Identify mainstem habitat sampling reaches, collect baseline data on physical habitat

conditions, identify opportunities for mimicking the range and diversity of historic habitat conditions,

develop improvement recommendations for mainstem reaches.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The project, originally grouped with the Hanford Reach projects, actually focuses on the Lower

Snake River. The response adequately addressed the ISRP concerns.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

101

Project ID: 25039

Effects of agricultural conversion on shrubsteppe wildlife and condition of extant shrubsteppe habitat

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Crab Creek

2002 Request: $681,215

3YR Estimate: $2,006,030

Short Description: Map shrubsteppe vegetation using a detailed classification system and determine

habitat associations of shrubsteppe wildlife to support restoration and conservation in the Columbia Plateau

Province.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable with low priority. This project relates to wildlife conservation planning by proposing to increase

knowledge of the extent and spatial arrangement of shrubsteppe plant communities and habitat associations

of shrubsteppe wildlife species. The overall goal is to obtain a general understanding of the current extent

and condition of the shrubsteppe habitat resource in the Columbia Plateau Province. The proposed scale of

mapping is not necessary to compare abundance of passerines, reptiles, and small mammals in different

vegetative communities nor to assess the status and distribution of Washington ground squirrels in the

Columbia Plateau Province. While it is desirable that the scale of all mapping efforts in the Columbia

Plateau Province be compatible, justification for this mapping effort is not adequate. Benefits to wildlife

are not clearly identified. The management application is not adequately demonstrated.

For Objectives 2-5 the following general comment is offered for consideration:

The ISRP recommends that terrestrial sampling on Fish and Wildlife Program lands follow a common

sampling method and some common data collection protocols across the four States involved to enhance

monitoring and evaluation of terrestrial systems on subbasin and basin scales. Perhaps the National

Resources Inventory sampling procedures and data collection protocols would serve the region well. See

the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews.

Project ID: 25046

A cooperative approach to evaluating avian and mammalian responses to shrubsteppe restoration in the

Crab Creek Subbasin

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Crab Creek

2002 Request: $141,184

3YR Estimate: $419,796

Short Description: We are proposing a cooperative, four-year research investigation involving the

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the University of Washington, to evaluate the

effectiveness of various restoration strategies in producing necessary habitat.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable with low priority. The purpose of this proposed research is to evaluate the effectiveness of

shrubsteppe restoration activities. The response addresses the concern about how representative the

particular combination of six habitat/administrative types are of the subbasin. While it could be argued that

at least some of the eight replicates within habitat/administrative types constitute pseudo-replication, this

situation may be unavoidable. While the ISRP supports monitoring projects to collectively monitor

subbasin habitat improvements, it is surprising that this research “designed to obtain information on the

most fundamental aspects of shrubsteppe restoration ecology” is necessary.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

102

The ISRP recommends that terrestrial sampling on Fish and Wildlife Program lands follow a common

sampling method and some common data collection protocols across the four States involved to enhance

monitoring and evaluation of terrestrial systems on subbasin and basin scales. Perhaps the National

Resources Inventory sampling procedures and data collection protocols would serve the region well. See

the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews.

ISRP Disagrees with CBFWA: ISRP Fundable and CBFWA Do Not

Fund

Project ID: 25076

Enhancing Riparian Corridors Sustainably with Integrated Agroforestry

Sponsor: Institute for WA's Future

Subbasin: Walla Walla

2002 Request: $1,270,000

3YR Estimate: $7,532,500

Short Description: Enhance streamflows, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and physical stream

functions in irrigated agricultural stream corridors while also enhancing community economy and social

welfare through sustainable, integrated agroforestry systems.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Do Not Fund

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. This is an interesting proposal that deserves attention by the Council. The proposal is to replace

some existing lowland crops with poplars (hybrid cottonwood trees) as a cash crop. This is a novel proposal

for an alternative irrigated agriculture product (trees for high-quality wood, rather than pulp) that saves

water for streams and incorporates a requirement for riparian improvements. Project personnel also

propose to grow and plant native trees and shrubs to enhance vegetation in stream corridors.

The pilot experiments, including 1000 acres, have generated further enthusiasm by the proponent for this

work. We suspect the results may be dramatic and provide a very useful demonstration of riparian, stream,

and economic benefits. The riparian restoration methods are potentially the most attractive components,

but the additional temperature benefit from the poplar plantation is also important.

Project sponsors provided detailed responses including alternatives to full funding. However, the response

to fish monitoring was inadequate in that it seemed to shuffle the responsibility off to fish agencies. The

project could sub-contract the measurement of the fish response on a reach-by-reach or preferably, whole

stream treatment and control approach, including a staircase experimental design. The (likely positive) fish

response could be a key selling point to this approach, towards more willing and enthusiastic farmers.

Independent economic analysis still is recommended.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Although this project was conceptually accepted through SRFB, there was a concern about the associated

costs and the eventual harvest of the trees. The watershed council in the area of this proposed work also

expressed concern about the proposed costs. The costs associated with this proposal are high relative to

the amount of habitat (40 acres) and the riparian buffers are narrower than NMFS's properly functioning

conditions (50 feet). There is no guarantee that the riparian habitat and gained cfs will be preserved. In

addition, there is no guarantee that pulp prices will remain high enough to maintain the program. As an

experiment, the scale of this project should have been much smaller.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

103

ISRP Fundable and CBFWA Do Not Fund - Policy Issue

Project ID: 25098

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

Columbia Plateau Ecoprovince

Sponsor: NHI

Subbasin: Mainstem Columbia

2002 Request: $330,825

3YR Estimate: $848,695

Short Description: Fine-scale wildlife habitat assessment for the Columbia Plateau Ecoprovince will

provide critical baseline data for planning and monitoring efforts that is consistent with the NWPPC 's

Subbasin Planning process.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Do Not Fund

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: NA - Policy Decision

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable. The ISRP has reviewed versions of this proposal in each provincial review and the sponsors

have adequately addressed the ISRP’s concerns on validation and field-testing from those reviews.

We repeat our comments from previous reviews: The proposal makes a convincing case for the value of

presenting complex habitat information in map form. The investigators have demonstrated the ability to

produce high-quality maps at the Columbia Basin level. The project will develop Landsat maps of wildlifehabitat types for the Columbia Plateau Province at a finer level of resolution than is currently available. The

maps will be made available to wildlife managers for the development of “coarse filter” conservation

strategies. Subbasin summaries, while not directly calling for these maps, do demonstrate a need for

mapping products.

The key issue for this project is support from the managers, and this proposal did not include letters of

support.

CBFWA Review Comments:

This activity is currently being funded under the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment project at 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.

Project ID: 25041

Wildlife Escape Ramps

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Crab Creek

2002 Request: $52,185

3YR Estimate: $133,680

Short Description: Modify irrigation canals within the Columbia Basin Irrigation Project that trap and kill

>200 mule deer each year. Installation of escape ramps will allow deer to exit these canals and reduce

mortality.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Do Not Fund

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: NA - Policy Decision

ISRP Final Comments:

Funding of this is a policy question. The need for escape ramps is clear because of the estimated number of

deer dying in canals, public concerns, and public safety issues, but the comparative priority under the Fish
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

104

and Wildlife Program is low. BPA responsibility for funding is not clear. Why is this not a BOR related

cost?

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project raises a serious in-lieu question that will have to be addressed. These ramps are constructed

in Bureau of Reclamation's canals for the Columbia Basin Project. CBFWA strongly supports the simple

approach for saving a large number of wildlife from these canals. The tie to the development of the

hydrosystem is difficult to make.

ISRP Agrees with CBFWA if Funded in Part

Project ID: 199404200

Trout Creek Habitat Restoration Project

Sponsor: ODFW

Subbasin: Deschutes

2002 Request: $414,170

3YR Estimate: $1,264,443

Short Description: O&M and construction of instream and riparian habitat improvement; Monitoring and

Evaluation of Summer steelhead smolt production and habitat recovery; coordination for basin long range

plan with a goal to increase native ESA listed stock.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree if funded in part

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable in part with 199802800 to finish the watershed assessment and plan. Completion of the long-term

action plan should be expedited; having it “targeted” for completion in 2003 seems like an unnecessary

delay. A completed watershed assessment should form the basis of the restoration plan. The monitoring

plan and methods are now inadequately described. Specific information about the choice of sites or

evidence for habitat improvement is lacking. The monitoring effort must be coordinated with 199801600,

25010, and 25088, using compatible protocols.

Project ID: 199802800

Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project

Sponsor: JCSWCD

Subbasin: Deschutes

2002 Request: $465,100

3YR Estimate: $996,700

Short Description: Implementation of practices that will enhance steelhead smolt production and habitat

recovery following completion of a watershed assessment/long-range plan currently being conducted.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree if funded in part

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable in part to do the watershed assessment. The other tasks are fundable if they are justified as

priority efforts under the watershed assessment, but a completed watershed assessment should form the

basis of the restoration plan. The watershed assessment, plan, and subsequent restoration efforts should

include input from a geomorphologist and a hydrologist. The listed tasks are key components of a

watershed restoration effort, but the details are still quite vague, relying on actions that will be done at

some future time. The watershed assessment should be complete prior to implementation to prioritize and

direct these efforts. The proposal presents the history, background, complexity, and multi-party

involvement that exist in the Trout Creek watershed restoration efforts. The Trout Creek Watershed

Council has been working cooperatively with ODFW to conduct the watershed assessment and will
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

105

continue cooperative work in the development of a long-range action plan. Work will be conducted through

cooperative agreements with private landowners.

Project ID: 25093

Characterize Genetic Differences and Distribution of Freshwater Mussels

Sponsor: CTUIR

Subbasin: Umatilla

2002 Request: $311,907

3YR Estimate: $1,032,410

Short Description: Conduct freshwater mussel surveys to assess their status and test for geographical

genetic differences among the western pearlshell mussel, Margaritifera falcata.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree if funded in part

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable in part to do the distribution work. The response was too brief and addressed the ISRP concerns

superficially. The reviewers were not convinced that this was the right approach to addressing mussel

issues. The reviewers recommend that the distribution work be done with a solid experimental design

testing several hypotheses including fish presence, sedimentation, habitat degradation, and

overexploitation. The genetic work, while well-designed and appropriate to test whether one or multiple

populations exist, can be conducted at a later date after the distribution and ecological hypothesis testing

are complete. Because of the expected low abundance of mussels, however, tissue samples should be

collected throughout the study as populations are encountered.

The proposed study, while thorough, seems to be one of relatively high-cost asking for nearly $2 million

over its proposed 5-year duration. It is worth asking if the major objectives of the study can be achieved

with a lesser amount and a shorter study duration?

CBFWA Review Comments:

Historically, freshwater mussels were an important subsistence species for the CTUIR. However, mussel

populations have declined and as a result mussels can no longer be used for purposes of subsistence.

Mussels have been listed as candidate species in the Willamette River. However, little, if anything, is

known about freshwater mussel distribution, abundance and habitat quality east of the Cascades. The

ODFW suggests that there is a need to initiate this type of work. The reviewers recommend that

preliminary genetic analyses should be limited to mtDNA (RFLPs) analyses. Microsatellite analyses

should only be used if mtDNA data are not conclusive.

Project ID: 199604601

Walla Walla Basin Fish Habitat Enhancement

Sponsor: CTUIR

Subbasin: Walla Walla

2002 Request: $287,407

3YR Estimate:

Short Description: Protect and restore habitat critical to the recovery of weak or reintroduced populations

of salmonid fish in the Walla Walla Basin thereby promoting natural ecological function and improved

water quality and quantity.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree if funded in part

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable in part. The watershed assessment component, if it follows standard protocols, of the project is

fundable. There is a need for a geomorphic analysis of each basin and a geomorphic prescription
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

106

developed for gaining stability. That analysis needs to be followed by an assessment of whether or not

geomorphic stability can be obtained given conditions in a basin. If restoration of geomorphic stability is

possible, the foregoing assessment should direct restoration efforts.

The project needs assistance of an experienced analyst. Data presented in the present proposal to support

continuation (length frequency graphs, stream cross-sections, temperature, vegetation counts, files

containing no data, watershed assessment forms) say little or nothing without comparative results.

The project sponsors state that they primarily search for ways to improve geomorphic stability, and they

should be encouraged to follow that strategy in the future. Program elements identified and initiated under

the watershed assessment process need to be associated with monitoring to assess geomorphic stability.

Project ID: 25028

John Day Upland Restoration

Sponsor: CTWSRO

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $399,595

3YR Estimate: $1,202,301

Short Description: Expand restoration program to encompass uplands. Monitor wildlife species indicative

of both riparian and upland health, aggressively control detrimental weed species that reduce upland

productivity, alter hydrologic regimes, and increase erosion.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree if funded in part

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable in part. Responses to ISRP questions and concerns about methods for juniper removal and

noxious weed control were adequate, and these tasks should be implemented. Responses adequately

address the reasons for chemical rather than fire control of medusa-head rye. Additionally, assessing the

reintroduction potential for sage grouse, sharp-tailed grouse and bighorn sheep by evaluation of habitat

availability seems to be justified and should be implemented.

However, tasks dealing with radio tagging of deer and camera stations are inadequate due to small sample

sizes. Monitoring plans are inadequate. The ISRP remains unconvinced that the small number of radio

tagged deer (5 in each of two areas) or the number of camera stations (5) are adequate to yield meaningful

information. More intensive and extensive monitoring for presence/absence by simpler methods would be

preferable.

The ISRP recommends that terrestrial sampling on Fish and Wildlife Program lands follow a common

sampling method and some common data collection protocols across the four States in order to enhance

monitoring and evaluation of terrestrial systems on subbasin and basin scales. Perhaps the National

Resources Inventory sampling procedures and data collection protocols would serve the region well. See

the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and ISRP reviews.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Currently, no T&E species are present. However, this project would address winter range conditions on

private lands that are contributing to the decline of grassland bird species. In addition, deer and elk

populations are dependent on these lands. Sharp-tailed grouse could be reintroduced pending habitat

conservation and improvement.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

107

Project ID: 25058

Fish Passage Inventory and Corrective Actions on WDFW Lands in the Yakima Subbasin

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $256,995

3YR Estimate: $1,918,051

Short Description: On WDFW lands, inventory fish passage structures and intake screens, identify

required corrective actions, and complete corrective actions where high priority passage problems exist.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree if funded in part

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable in part to assess the problems in the context of the larger watershed (objective 1, task 1). Further

funding for corrective action should be contingent on identification of priority sites and preparation of more

specific information on costs and benefits.

Fish passage needs generally are a high priority, but the response was not helpful in alleviating several

review panel concerns regarding the relative need to detect and remediate fish passage problems and its

cost on these WDFW lands. Funding for the first year would answer some of the questions concerning the

benefits of corrective actions.

From the response, it appears that the Screening Priority Index Model is popular and functioning well

within the realm of decision-making (certainly very important), but our query was more in regards to

whether predictions from that model proved to be accurate in a biological sense, and whether fish

populations actually have responded to enhanced passage as the model has predicted.

Although fiscal issues are not a major interest of the review panel, cost seems inordinately high: $257K for

a two-person crew for one year (compared to $169K for a WDFW survey crew), and no evidence of any

WDFW costshare in out-years for design and construction.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Reviewers had concerns that the project focuses on State lands and data and priorities would have to be

integrated with other activities throughout the subbasin prior to funding implementation. The

implementation funding for this project should not be provided until the assessment has been completed

and an implementation plan reviewed by CBFWA.

Project ID: 25095

Pesticides and the environmental health of salmonids in the Yakima subbasin.

Sponsor: NMFS/NWFSC

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $257,800

3YR Estimate: $825,800

Short Description: Evaluate the effects of current use pesticides on the physiology and fitness of Chinook

salmon. Incorporate empirical data into a spatially explicit model of population viability in the Yakima

subbasin.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree if funded in part

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable in part for the laboratory component to evaluate the effects of current use pesticides. Justification

of use of predation mortality as the key indicator of impact is well defended and seems well justified. A

portion of the field experiment to determine the effects of short-term pesticide exposure on post-release
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

108

survival in a natural creek is inadequate. Providing a measure of mortality for one stream at one time could

be very misleading because results in another time and place could be quite different. Using results from

one demonstration as input into a life stage-based matrix population model could then compound the

problem. Do not fund this portion of the fieldwork as now proposed. The modeling component, while

fundable, should include objective evaluation of modeling results.

This project is designed to evaluate the toxicological effects of selected pesticides on the normal function

of the chinook nervous system. Specific tasks would relate sublethal thresholds for neurotoxic injury to

pesticide pulse conditions from salmon habitat and examine physiological thresholds for neurotoxicity in

different life history stages. Experiments are designed to explore the effects of pesticide exposure on

survival and reproductive success of chinook. Models will be used to link the pesticide impacts observed

from experiments to population level impacts on rate of straying and productivity of wild populations.

ISRP Disagrees with CBFWA: ISRP Fundable in Part and CBFWA

Do Not Fund

Project ID: 25100

Protect Normative Structure and Function of Critical Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitat

Sponsor: City of Yakima

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $2,499,000

3YR Estimate: $10,079,000

Short Description: Acquisition of lands for: protection of aquatic/terrestrial habitat; improvements of

water quality; reconnection of the flood plain; restoration/protection of the riparian habitat and antural

hydrologic regime.

ISRP Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Recommendation: Do Not Fund

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part; Agree with CBFWA comments.

ISRP Final Comments:

Fundable in part at reduced costs as proposed by project sponsors. The proponents of the proposal agreed

that this project was “still very much in the planning phase” and suggested modifying the project for 2002.

Their suggestion was to reduce the costs to $349,000 for 2002; other portions of the proposal would be

shifted back one year to 2003. The ISRP agrees with an initial planning and assessment phase and would

support this reduced cost for 2002. Funding for future years, however, should remain contingent upon

completion of these assessments and integration of this program with other BOR and Yakama Nation

projects in the Selah floodplain. Clearly, the primary goal of the project to establish functioning riparian

zones within an urban environment could have strong social and educational value. However, the

proponents must provide more quantitative measures of the habitat protected and/or value to fish and

wildlife before their proposed efforts can be prioritized against competing proposals within the basin.

CBFWA Review Comments:

The project sponsor has reduced their budget to accomplish planning in the first year. Any additional

implementation funding would be reviewed during a within year process. It was unfortunate that the

project sponsor did not participate in the project presentation phase of the project review. The response to

the ISRP did not address the technical concerns with the project. This project needs to be better

coordinated with the fish and wildlife co-managers in the subbasin.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

109

ISRP Disagrees with CBFWA: ISRP Not Fundable and CBFWA

High Priority

Project ID: 25085

Eradication of brook trout from Winom Creek to enhance bull trout habitat.

Sponsor: USFS

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $50,000

3YR Estimate: $150,000

Short Description: Removal of brook trout from Winom Creek above a natural barrier to reduce

hybidization and competition with a resident bull trout population and increase available bull trout habitat.

ISRP Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Do Not Fund. This is a proposal to attempt to remove exotic brook trout from the reach (about 9 miles) of

Winom Creek upstream from a barrier falls. The proposal and presentation stressed removal work done via

electroshocking in Sun Creek in Crater Lake National Park. The hypothesis is that the bull trout above the

falls is an endemic local population, and if left alone its viability is in jeopardy because of interbreeding

and interaction with the brook trout. An alternative hypothesis is that the bull trout also were introduced at

the same time as the brook trout when introduced from downstream. Wouldn’t this project be more

appropriately directed to determining whether or not this is an endemic, isolated population of bull trout?

The proposal could have been more effective with inclusion of a map showing bull trout distributions in the

John Day basin and the relationship of the Winom Creek population to other John Day bull trout

populations.

Brook trout removal has proven to be difficult and problematic in most cases. Methods need to be robust

and long-term monitoring will be required to ensure project success. Hard removal using chemicals could

be considered after distribution surveys, if the surveys do not reveal bull trout in this section of Winom

Creek. It is important to also determine the population size and distribution of the brook trout population at

present and the level of threat it may present to bull trout populations other than Winom Creek.

CBFWA Review Comments:

The USFWS have identified brook trout/bull trout interactions as a region-wide concern. ODFW managers

indicate the bull trout population is limited by the presence of brook trout. The USFWS and ODFW

suggested that the eradication of brook trout from this area will be essential for the recovery of bull trout.

The final listing recommends eradication of brook trout as a component of bull trout recovery. The

Resident Fish Caucus views brook trout control as a high priority to bull trout recovery. However, the

Resident Fish Caucus questions the study design/techniques and question whether it is possible to totally

eradicate brook trout.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

110

Project ID: 198710001

Enhance Umatilla River Basin Anadromous Fish Habitat

Sponsor: CTUIR

Subbasin: Umatilla

2002 Request: $506,403

3YR Estimate: $1,596,437

Short Description: Enhance floodplain, riparian and in-stream habitat on private lands in the Umatilla

River Basin to increase natural production of summer steelhead, coho salmon and chinook salmon

ISRP Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Not fundable. Fund the high-priority restoration work but only after further review. Habitat restoration is

justified and critical in this watershed, but the project is not addressing the issue in a science-based manner

with a watershed assessment utilizing standard format or procedures, with adequate post-treatment

monitoring. Clear evidence of a subbasin watershed assessment (in close cooperation with ODFW) and

prescription plan must be provided. The watershed assessment and plan should precede and direct the

restoration efforts to be consistent with the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program's primary

strategy for habitat, "Identify the current condition and biological potential of the habitat, and then protect

or restore it to the extent described in the biological objectives." Moving this project into a fundable status

will require the input of an experienced analytical team, towards development of a subbasin monitoring

plan with clearly defined response variables, and with ties to a basinwide task of effectiveness monitoring.

Please refer to ISRP general comments on monitoring in the introduction section. Habitat restoration

projects should be evaluated on the basis of smolt yield as a key response variable, in control and treatment

watersheds, with replication. See comments under 198710002.

Habitat restoration remains the most effective means to increase stream productivity for salmonids,

particularly important during this period of low survival during the smolt-to-adult life stage. Accordingly,

the most effective restoration tools need to be identified, applied, and evaluated through a standardized

process beginning with watershed condition assessment and following with priority prescriptions, proven

restoration treatments, and well-coordinated monitoring. Reviewers felt that monitoring aspects of this

work were slim, flawed and poorly justified despite a detailed response. In the response, sponsors went to

great length to find support for their use of macroinvertebrate monitoring. A clear explanation of the need

for invertebrate monitoring as a response variable in evaluating the effectiveness of enhanced fish habitat

was lacking. The sponsors could have produced a more convincing argument by using some real data to

show the ISRP that their concerns are unwarranted. A clear explanation of the need for invertebrate

monitoring as a response variable in evaluating the effectiveness of enhanced fish habitat was lacking. The

response variable should be fish, and preferably smolt yield from a sufficient of treated and untreated

systems number (to be determined based on annual variability and the level of detection required).

A data summary on some (unjustified) variables was attached but there was no interpretation offered, and

little to indicate positive or negative values from habitat enhancement. The approach to monitoring is not

in compliance with other efforts in the Basin, for which ISRP has repeatedly requested coordination.

Habitat enhancement should continue in high priority sites of obvious limitation to salmonids, but other

work only upon completion of the WSU watershed assessment that will hopefully detail the work required

(prescription).
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

111

Project ID: 198710002

Umatilla Subbasin Fish Habitat Improvement

Sponsor: ODFW

Subbasin: Umatilla

2002 Request: $759,300

3YR Estimate: $2,392,594

Short Description: Protect and enhance coldwater fish habitat on private lands in the Umatilla River basin

in a manner that achieves self-sustaining salmonid populations and their associated habitat by utilizing

natural stream functions to the fullest extent.

ISRP Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Not fundable as it stands. Fund the high-priority restoration work only, after further review. Habitat

restoration is justified and critical in this watershed, and the personnel appear experienced and qualified for

on-the-ground applications. There is evidence of an improved and cooperative approach to the restoration

work, learning from past experience, knowledge of the literature and some careful analysis and

consideration of priorities. However, the project could be improved by addressing the restoration issue in a

science-based manner with a watershed assessment utilizing standard format or procedures, with adequate

post-treatment monitoring. See comments for 198710001. Clear evidence of a subbasin watershed

assessment (in close cooperation with CTUIR) and prescription plan (with priorities) must be provided.

The watershed assessment and plan should precede and direct the restoration efforts to be consistent with

the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program's primary strategy for habitat, "Identify the current

condition and biological potential of the habitat, and then protect or restore it to the extent described in the

biological objectives." Moving this project into a fully fundable status will require clear listing and

justification of priorities, and for monitoring, the input of an experienced analytical team, towards

development of a subbasin assessment, prescription, rehabilitation, and monitoring plan with clearly

defined response variables, and with ties to a basinwide task of effectiveness monitoring. Please refer to

ISRP general comments on monitoring in the introduction section. Habitat restoration projects should be

evaluated as a program on the basis of smolt yield as a key response variable, in selected control and

treatment watersheds (but not all watersheds), with replication. Components of restoration (hillslopes,

riparian, in-stream) in all projects require routine monitoring (for example, fish presence or absence,

relative abundance, or decreased sedimentation, or clear evidence of temperature improvements, etc.).

Sufficient evidence of any of these was not presented. Functional responses to restoration work may

require scientific research that is not requested herein.

CBFWA Review Comments:

The cost of this project continues to increase due to change in approach (I.e., active v.s passive channel

restoration).
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

112

Project ID: 199401806

Implement Tucannon River Model Watershed Plan to Restore Salmonid Habitat

Sponsor: Columbia CD

Subbasin: Tucannon

2002 Request: $352,625

3YR Estimate: $1,152,038

Short Description: Implement, assess, and monitor habitat cost-share projects coordinated through the

Tucannon River Model Watershed Program, a "grass roots" public and agency collaborated effort to restore

salmonid habitat on private and public property.

ISRP Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Not fundable. Sponsors failed to demonstrate prioritization of efforts by a watershed assessment. Project

needs refocusing and reorientation, with assistance from of an experienced fluvial-geomorphologist and an

experienced analyst to guide assessment strategies, and to help identify meaningful controls.

This program was initiated based on a premise that fish habitat in the Tucannon River would be improved

by “... increasing pool and spawning habitat quality & quantity through geomorphic stabilization, riparian

bio-function restoration, increasing complexity, maintaining adequate flow, and reducing water temperature

and sediment.” The ISRP is concerned that the focus of the project appears too have changed to

development of bio-engineered instream structures; there is no evidence that the project is improving

conditions for fish. A detailed response was provided; however, ISRP reviewers remain committed to the

notion that bioengineering projects should be limited to “fine-tuning” once watershed function has been

restored. Bio-engineered projects are methods to control a channel; they generally do not produce the

geomorphic stability required for a productive watershed.

Sponsors did provide some information to show impact of projects on physical structure of the channel, but

none to show the biological benefits. The data (Tables 1 and 2) that were presented are difficult to

interpret. Many more pools were reported in 2000 than in 1998, but the stream got wider and shallower.

Stream discharge was greater in 2000 than in 1998. It is not clear that these differences are associated with

project activities. Data in Table 12 are offered as evidence of benefits for fish, but these data need to be

compared to similar data from both control and treatment sites before the alterations were made if it is to

have any meaning.

Objective 1 of the proposal is to “Improve adult pre-spawning survival” and Objective 2 is to “Improve

juvenile survival.” There doesn’t seem to be any monitoring of survival to assess progress in meeting these

objectives. The original intent of the project was to improve geomorphic stability, but there doesn’t seem

to be any monitoring of characteristics for a geomorphically stable watershed.

This project needs to return to its original purpose. That is “... increasing pool and spawning habitat

quality & quantity through geomorphic stabilization, riparian bio-function restoration, increasing

complexity, maintaining adequate flow, and reducing water temperature and sediment” The project needs

to enlist the services of an experienced fluvial-geomorphologist to assist in design and evaluation of

projects to facilitate geomorphic stability, and to assess the probability that sufficient change is possible to

attain desired conditions, and to help identify an appropriate monitoring strategy. They also need

assistance of an experienced analyst to guide assessment strategies and to help identify meaningful

controls. These inputs should be in place before new actions are taken.

CBFWA Review Comments:

The proposal needs to be retooled to concentrate on passive restoration approaches (i.e.. fencing and

planting). There is disagreement on the level of success of bioengineering solutions and the reviewers

would like to see an emphasis on returning ecosystem function to the stream corridor. This project needs

to be implemented consistent with limiting factors and problem locations identified in subbasin summaries
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

113

and eventually subbasin planning to ensure fisheries benefits to target species. There needs to be oversight

by the COTR to ensure that actions taken will benefit fish and wildlife. We agree with ISRP that no

biological benefit has been demonstrated to date as measures of success have been focused on physical

structures and population densities near them.

Project ID: 25094

Restore Touchet River Watershed Habitat to Support ESA listed Stocks

Sponsor: Columbia CD

Subbasin: Walla Walla

2002 Request: $343,912

3YR Estimate: $1,124,676

Short Description: Implement, assess, and monitor habitat cost-share projects coordinated through the

Touchet River Watershed Program, a "grass roots" public and agency collaborated effort to restore

salmonid habitat on private and public property.

ISRP Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority (passive restoration measures only)

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Not fundable. Project sponsors demonstrated success in working with landowners, but the restoration

approach is not adequately justified. The project needs a watershed assessment in place so that they can

assign priority to prescriptions. There is little evidence that limiting factors will be addressed. Evaluation

based on some physical measurements in different years at different flows with controls is wanting. Help

via expertise in standard watershed restoration procedures and in analysis is required. The project needs to

include services of an experienced fluvial-geomorphologist and a hydrologist to assist in design and

evaluation of projects to restore geomorphic stability, and to assess the probability that sufficient change is

even possible for attaining the desired conditions. This input should be in place before new actions are

taken. The proposal is to mimic methods the strategy and methods used in the Tucannon River, but data

from the Tucannon River do not provide convincing evidence that benefits are accruing in that basin from

the proposed methods. Tables 1 and 2 are difficult to interpret. Many more pools were found in 2000 than

in 1998, but the stream got wider and shallower. Stream discharge also was greater in 2000 than in 1998

confounding any reliable comparisons. Data in Table 12 need to be compared to similar data from both

control and treatment sites before the alterations were made. The project also needs assistance of an

experienced analyst to guide assessment strategies, and to help identify meaningful controls.

CBFWA Review Comments:

The $232,000 that is listed in Section 8 was identified as cost share when in fact it is supposed to be

implementation. Reviewers suggest that more riparian work should be performed in the near future instead

of instream activities. This project addresses habitat issues that are essential to the successful management

of endangered species and has been proposed to be implemented in the appropriate areas. The proposal

needs to be retooled to concentrate on passive restoration approaches (i.e.. fencing and planting) and the

budget should be reduced appropriately. There is disagreement on the level of success of bioengineering

solutions and the reviewers would like to see an emphasis on returning ecosystem function to the stream

corridor. This project needs to be implemented consistent with limiting factors and problem locations

identified in subbasin summaries and eventually subbasin planning to insure fisheries benefits to target

species. There needs to be oversight by the COTR to ensure that actions taken will benefit fish and wildlife.

There is a disconnect between what are identified as limiting factors and the application of restoration

measures.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

114

Project ID: 25072

Restore Tucannon River Riparian Habitat: Wooten Wildlife Area

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Tucannon

2002 Request: $135,400

3YR Estimate: $852,600

Short Description: Remove six (6) campgrounds from within Tucannon River riparian zone; restore

riparian habitat and function through revegetation and protection to improve anadromous fish habitat;

establish three (3) new campgrounds outside riparian zone.

ISRP Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority (removal of site); Recommended Action (construction of new

site)

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Not fundable. The ISRP is not convinced that the magnitude of the campground impact, relative to other

habitat concerns in the watershed, is significant. The ISRP believes that all other alternatives to eliminating

these campgrounds have not been eliminated. Fencing with occasional irrigation, for example, may

provide the stimulus to initiate growth of native vegetation. Perhaps parking areas and the number of

campers could be limited at each site. The hypothesis is that significant damage to chinook salmon is

occurring because of these campgrounds. Argument provided in support of the hypotheses is not

convincing. Fencing and signs and other forms of public education seem a more cost-effective approach

than what is proposed (relocation).

CBFWA Review Comments:

The current location of the campground (state land) jeopardizes the health of the riparian habitat.

Reviewers are concerned with the large expenditure to replace/relocate camping/picnicking amenities to

areas outside the riparian areas. Reviewers recognize that removal is high priority and should be funded.

If a cost share is identified to cover at least 50% of the total project cost then the managers recommend

that the remainder of the project should be reclassified as "High Priority".

ISRP Disagrees with CBFWA: ISRP Not Fundable and CBFWA

Recommended Action

Project ID: 25005

Bighorn Sheep reintroduction to the Warm Springs Reservation

Sponsor: CTWSRO

Subbasin: Deschutes

2002 Request: $70,862

3YR Estimate: $117,802

Short Description: This project would reintroduce Bighorn Sheep to the Mutton Mountains area of the

Warm Springs Reservation. Bighorn Sheep were indigenous to the Mutton Mountains but were extirpated

in the early 1900’s.

ISRP Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Not fundable. This is a good project that otherwise deserves funding, so it is unfortunate that the proponent

did not provide protocols for introducing sheep and monitoring changes in habitat, bighorn distribution and

abundance. Reference is made to conformity with ODFW protocol with wildlife introductions, but aside

from listing what will be monitored, detail on how monitoring will be conducted is sparse. A monitoring
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

115

plan should be in place before introduction takes place. Similarly, a more specific plan should be in place

for how contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep will be avoided; i.e., instead of saying that

measures to minimize “can be implemented,” develop a protocol that includes specific avoidance measures.

As an example of the monitoring detail needed, see the response to ISRP concerns on Proposal #200002300

“Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Horn Butte (Philippi Property)”. What measures of success

will be used by this project?

Adequate responses were given to the other ISRP concerns.

Project ID: 25083

Special Status Wildlife Species Surveys and Priority Habitat Assessment in the Deschutes River Subbasin

Sponsor: ODFW

Subbasin: Deschutes

2002 Request: $100,000

3YR Estimate: $320,000

Short Description: Establish permanent sampling stations and transects for target species, conduct species

surveys, and assess habitat for maintaining species viability through time

ISRP Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Not fundable. Inadequate response. The response is a set of replies to ISRP comments rather than a major

revision of the proposal as requested. The replies do not provide the requested detail on sample design and

methods, creating the impression that the investigators have not developed a systematic plan to approach

this work. The ISRP remains unconvinced that the proposal contains adequate guidelines for a contractor

to conduct useful probabilistic surveys for presence/absence or distribution of abundance of these sensitive

species. The proponents at the very end of the response (after the references) make the following

statements: “This project will utilize the monitoring design developed by the EPA EMAP. This design

selects stream sites within a target area (watershed, basin, ecoregion, etc.) using a probabilistic or random

site selection procedure. In this way an unbiased set of samples is collected which allows a more accurate

evaluation of the status and, over time, trends in environmental conditions and specific species. EPA

EMAP staff in the Corvallis, Oregon office are willing to review and comment on our project sampling

designs.” These statements could be taken as the starting point for an adequate proposal, but they are

inconsistent with most of the statements in the proposal and in the response.

As an example of the detail needed, see the ODFW response to ISRP concerns on Proposal #200002300

“Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Horn Butte (Philippi Property)”. The ISRP recommends that

terrestrial sampling on Fish and Wildlife Program lands follow a common sampling method and some

common data collection protocols across the four States involved to enhance monitoring and evaluation of

terrestrial systems on subbasin and basin scales. Perhaps the National Resources Inventory sampling

procedures and data collection protocols would serve the region well. See the Proposals #200002300 and

#200020116 and ISRP reviews.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

116

Project ID: 25051

Columbia Plateau Natural Resources Collaborative (CPNRC)

Sponsor: NRCS

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $823,200

3YR Estimate: $3,063,600

Short Description: Establish collaborative process to provide assistance to local watershed groups on

subbasin planning, ESA/CWA integration, and implementation funding to facilitate conservation

application to restore salmon and water quality on private lands.

ISRP Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Do not fund. This proposal would establish cooperative multi-federal agency provision of planning and

technical assistance to agricultural landowners through existing local conservation partnerships for the

purpose of accelerating the implementation of conservation activities. The idea is to establish a single

planning process that would streamline all the various regulatory requirements. The project has 2

components: interdisciplinary planning and field office implementation.

The proposal lacked a sharp focus and seemed to alternate between suggesting it would work directly with

the landowner (which the SWCDs already seem to do well!) or suggesting that it’s best efforts might be to

serve as a liaison / support center for the SWCDs in assisting them to implement riparian buffer actions

with the local landowner through CRP programs. How much redundancy is there between the work

proposed in this project and the functioning of the SWCD projects in implementing the CRP activities at

the level of the individual landowner? The proposal and presentation asserted that their larger staff and

more regional perspective would be a resource asset to the SWCDs and would significantly speed up the

implementation of CRP-funded riparian buffer enhancement from the perspective of the local landowner.

No indication was made whether the SWCDs shared this view.

The SWCD proposals working at the grass roots level seem to provide the same services in a much more

cost-effective manner. The cost of this project versus the SWCD projects differs by nearly an order of

magnitude. Would the benefits of this project deliver benefits in line with the difference in cost?

While streamlining requirements is a good idea, the proposal does not make a compelling case that adding

an additional layer of coordination group would fix the problem, nor does it establish the critical need for

the proposed services. The present staff appears competent but the proposed project seems to be top-heavy

with planners. The proposal is a large and expensive one that is focused on increasing staff size

substantially. Funds are requested for 2.5 FTEs, equipment, travel and supplies. The proposal asks for a

significant amount of money ($823k) to fix a coordination problem across federal agencies, without

establishing that a lack of money is currently limiting the coordination. If there is a problem with federal

agency coordination, why don’t the staffs of the federal agencies in question fix it through existing means?

CBFWA Review Comments:

This proposal requests staffing ($643,300/year for 25 positions) for coordination for subbasin

planning/assessments for the John Day Subbasin, activities that are already performed by watershed

councils. Reviewers suggest these activities should be funded through the USDA.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

117

Project ID: 25084

Develop GIS Layers for Generation of Specific Natural Resource GIS Maps and Analysis

Sponsor: ODFW

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $111,000

3YR Estimate: $271,000

Short Description: Develop data sets for use in comparative analysis of multiple factors affecting fish and

wildlife values in the four subbasins. This data can help integrate basin wide natural resource planning and

decision making.

ISRP Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Not fundable. A response was requested but not received.

The preliminary ISRP comments include:

This project would develop data sets for the generation of comparative maps at the watershed level.

Although the development of GIS products would be useful representations of watershed-level conditions,

the proposal does not indicate how the mapping products it describes are distinct from those developed by

others – e.g. the NHI – for use in the EDT analysis, even though it refers to these products. Methods are

only vaguely described: “produce...maps” or “use products”.

Presenting comparative information in maps does not necessarily provide explanation for changes or

provide direction for recovery actions. The rationale is extremely vague without even hypothetical

examples of how the product would be used. It’s not clear how fish and wildlife managers would use

mapping products to develop risk assessments of fish and wildlife resources. The proposal does not provide

information that would make it possible to judge the relative value of providing maps and information for

planning purposes versus on the ground habitat improvement, land acquisition, etc.

The project should be explicitly tied to long term biological monitoring projects whereby site specific

information could be provided to sites that are selected for monitoring of terrestrial or aquatic systems.

Also, the potential overlap of these GISs with the ones proposed for selecting probabilistic samples of sites

for water quality, fish surveys, remote vegetation monitoring, etc. should be explained.

Resumes of project investigators should be provided.

Why should this project be funded by BPA and not by the state of Oregon? It seems that most of the

results are to be housed in the ODFW and are to be used by Oregon agencies.

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project should be coordinated with the project 25098 and funded through the NWPPC's EDT process.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

118

Project ID: 25016

Assessment of habitat improvement actions on water temperature, streamflow, physical habitat, & aquatic

community health in the Birch Creek Watershed

Sponsor: USGS

Subbasin: Umatilla

2002 Request: $403,000

3YR Estimate: $1,243,000

Short Description: This study will explore the reach- and watershed-scale impacts of stream-habitat

improvement actions on water temperature, streamflow and the food web in the Birch Creek watershed of

the Umabilla subbasin

ISRP Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Not fundable. The response was not convincing that a mechanistic modeling approach to the understanding

of the functional response in watershed restoration is justified at this time, compared to a paired-streams

control and treatment analysis of key response variables. See comments under 198710001 and 198710002.

Project ID: 25019

Tucannon River Roads, Cut and Fill Slope Restoration

Sponsor: Pomeroy Ranger District

Subbasin: Tucannon

2002 Request: $19,500

3YR Estimate: $52,500

Short Description: Stablize road cut and fill slopes with erosion matting, and boulder collars reducing

sediment contributions to the Tucannon River and its tributaries. Propagating, and planting native shrubs

and grasses on sites.

ISRP Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Not fundable. A response was not provided. This is a proposal to expand and continue efforts to stabilize

sources of erosion associated with roads to help reduce sediment in spawning areas. Project personnel are

well qualified and experienced to accomplish the work required. A monitoring program is included to

detect changes in the spawning areas. The proposal should make it clear how changes caused by the

project will be separated from changes unrelated to the project. There is insufficient detail in the proposal

on what will be done where. Why BPA funding? USDA responsibility?

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project is a USFS responsibility (in-lieu).
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

119

Project ID: 25034

Develop a Nutrient/Food-Web Management Tool for Watershed-River Systems

Sponsor: PNNL

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $376,382

3YR Estimate: $544,041

Short Description: Develop method to assess nutrients in water and associated benefits to juvenile fish by

using computational fluid dynamics, watershed and food chain models.

ISRP Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Not fundable, a timely response was not received for ISRP review.

Preliminary Comment:

Fundable if adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns; e.g. after receipt of commitment for WDFW

participation.

This is a well-written and innovative proposal that could result in a useful management tool. The proposal

involves a good balance of data collection, integration of models, validation of predictions, reporting, and

sensitivity to management needs. The proposal is only for two years but is reliant upon participation of

WDFW staff for the provision of data on nutrient enhancement in the American, Bumping, and Naches

rivers. Unfortunately, the proposal does not include any confirmation or commitment from WDFW for the

provision of this data (except for sub-contractor costs included in the budget). Confirmation of WDFW

agreement must accompany this proposal.

The ISRP suggests, however, that this proposal could wait to see if the empirical evidence shows results

before developing an elaborate model. Because of the interest in nutrient enhancement, a modeling system

that could be used to prioritize and direct management decisions could be valuable. A question is whether

the results of this study will be available in time to add to the debate because of the number of nutrient

enhancement projects that are in progress. That is, will the results from this study be unnecessary because

of information gained from other projects? At the very least, information from other nutrient enhancement

projects should be compared in some way to the results predicted from this modeling effort. At this time,

we assess the priority for this modeling work to be medium.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Indirect costs for this project appear excessive. During the FY01 Innovative funding process, CBFWA

ranked this project (Project Number 22055) as a Recommended Action. The model at this stage will be

entirely theoretical at this point and will not provide practical analyses until significant empirical data has

been acquired.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

120

Project ID: 25090

Determine Quantitative Values for the Perpetual Timber Rights on the WDFW Oak Creek and Wenas

Wildlife Areas.

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $235,000

3YR Estimate: $235,000

Short Description: Assess feasibility of re-acquiring ownership of habitat (timber rights) to refocus land

management from timber production and harvest to fish and wildlife habitat protection and enhancement.

ISRP Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Do not fund. A response was not warranted. Benefits and priority of the project are not justified. The

proposal provided inadequate justification for use of Bonneville funds in this manner. Defining values is a

necessary prerequisite to future negotiations between WDFW and Boise Cascade. Re-acquisition would

allow better management of forested and shrub-steppe habitat. Little monitoring and evaluation proposed

except, “perform wildlife surveys” and HEP to determine habitat conditions prior to acquisition and even

these minimal efforts are not justified as integral to the project. This is not a very compelling proposal

because the damage to the habitat for this growth cycle of timber has been done. Further disturbance in the

near future seems unlikely.

Project ID: 25063

Subbasin Planning Coordinator for Oregon

Sponsor: OWEB

Subbasin: Mainstem Columbia

2002 Request: $100,225

3YR Estimate: $300,675

Short Description: This project provides a state coordinator to integrate subbasin planning with the

Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds.

ISRP Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Do not fund. No response is warranted. This is a token placeholder proposal. There should be an

integration of effort at the state level for subbasin planning. An entity should be responsible for developing

state priorities and report to and be funded by the Governor. The proposal did not give enough information

to justify this position, although increased coordination would likely benefit the subbasin planning effort.

CBFWA Review Comments:

This project should be funded through the NWPPC subbasin planning efforts.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

121

Project ID: 25091

Mainstem habitats and aquatic communities: assessment and management options

Sponsor: USGS

Subbasin: Mainstem Columbia

2002 Request: $394,200

3YR Estimate: $1,164,200

Short Description: We propose to characterize the nearshore habitat and community structure in the

mainstem reservoirs of the Columbia Plateau Province, and develop experiments to test management

options in the mainstem river.

ISRP Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Not fundable. The response proposes an extensive revision of the project. Although the response addressed

the ISRP’s concerns the revision is not a complete proposal. Rather it is a series of hypotheses to be tested

concerning interaction between American shad juveniles and salmonids. Sponsors may want to consider

submitting a complete proposal in the upcoming Mainstem and Systemwide Province solicitation.

Project ID: 25089

The Effects of Agriculture on Amphibians of the Columbia Plateau

Sponsor: WDFW

Subbasin: Crab Creek

2002 Request: $121,945

3YR Estimate: $301,945

Short Description: Compare historic versus current distribution of four amphibian species, representing

different hydorperiod requirement to determine how agriculture affects these species, to identify valuable

conservation areas, and to refine distribution model.

ISRP Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Do not fund. A response was not warranted.

Proposes to establish a current baseline for occupancy patterns for the four amphibian target species to

address the limiting factor of lack of knowledge about the current state of amphibian populations. Historic

distribution of these species does not appear imperative. Similarly, comparing historic occupied and

unoccupied sites may have little relevance to distribution patterns now. The proposed methods for

comparison of current occupied and unoccupied sites are weak. Objective methods to evaluate occupancy

patterns are needed. It is not clear that this project will broaden the understanding of irrigation-influenced

amphibian habitat changes because of the great number of other confounding factors that have been

hypothesized for amphibian population declines worldwide. There is no connection between anticipated

results and the management pay-off.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

122

ISRP and CBFWA Agree: Do Not Fund

Project ID: 25044

Application of Biological Assessment Protocol to Evaluate Passage of Juvenile Salmonids Through

Culverts in the Yakima Basin

Sponsor: PNNL

Subbasin: Yakima

2002 Request: $95,553

3YR Estimate: $306,823

Short Description: Apply laboratory developed protocol for assessing juvenile salmonid passage through

roadway culverts.

ISRP Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Do Not Fund

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Do not fund. A response was not warranted. The proposed project acts as a field test of a protocol being

developed by WDOT and PNNL to evaluate juvenile passage through culverts. There are a number of

shortcomings in this proposal. An inadequate number of culverts are proposed for study in the first year.

Specific capture techniques have not been determined, which provides little confidence that meaningful

results can be obtained. Training for physical and hydraulic assessment techniques is requested indicating

that personnel may not be appropriate to achieve objectives. The proposers ignored fish passage work

done outside of WA. There is a protocol that already exists for improving fish passage by WDFW (see

proposal 25058) that indicates that this work is not needed.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Technical criteria 5 requires that WDFW or WDOT adopts any protocols that are developed through this

project. If this project is not completed in concert with these agencies, this project should not be funded. It

is not clear whether this project is well coordinated with WDFW or WDOT?

Project ID: 25061

John Day Fish Passage Barrier Inventory

Sponsor: OWEB

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $152,450

3YR Estimate: $266,788

Short Description: This project provides staff to conduct a basin-wide inventory of potential barriers to

fish passage. The project will develop a joint prioritization approach to barrier elimination based on

biological importance.

ISRP Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Do Not Fund

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Do not fund, a response was not warranted. This proposal is too brief and does not justify its need or

adequately explain its relationship to other proposals. It gives no indication of monitoring and evaluation or

personnel.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Reviewers indicate that an inventory of fish passage barriers is not warranted since barriers to fish passage

have already been identified and that implementation is ongoing. In addition, there has been no

coordination with the management agencies.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

123

Project ID: 25087

Desolation Creek Rehabilitation and Meadow Restoration

Sponsor: USFS

Subbasin: John Day

2002 Request: $40,000

3YR Estimate: $190,000

Short Description: To recover or reconstruct stream channel and rehabilitate Desolation Meadow on the

North Fork of Desolation Creek.

ISRP Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Recommendation: Do Not Fund

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Comments:

Do Not Fund. Inadequate proposal. This project proposes to rehabilitate an upland meadow in Desolation

Creek on USFS lands. The project looks worthwhile; the problem and history of land use that created the

problem are described well. Nevertheless, the proposal is extremely weak in its objectives and associated

tasks. Linkages are made to the subbasin summary goals, and other regional documents, but not to the

Council’s FWP. Methods are entirely absent. Lack of specific methods and citations supporting their use

are completely missing from the proposal and represent a serious (in this case fatal) omission from the

proposal.

A policy question exists concerning whether BPA funding is appropriate for work that should be done

under USFS land management -mandates. During the presentation, the ISRP asked questions about the

expected land uses after the 10-year rest period during which no grazing is occurring. The PI responded

that the stream corridor would be fenced, but did not provide definitive statements of how the factors that

contributed to the habitat decline would be controlled.

CBFWA Review Comments:

Difficult to review and recommend for funding due to an incomplete proposal.
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

124

Table of Proposals

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin 2002 Request 3YR Estimate ISRP

Recommendation

CBFWA

Recommendation

ISRP

Comparison with

CBFWA

Page

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) Proposals 9

199506325 Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project

Monitoring And Evaluation

YKFP Yakima $3,883,332 $12,914,597 Fundable in Part High Priority Agree if funded

in part

15

199701325 Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project

Operations and Maintenance

YKFP Yakima $2,549,774 $8,567,865 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 19

198811525 Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project

(YKFP) Design and Construction

YKFP Yakima $1,595,000 $8,286,000 Fundable in Part High Priority Agree if funded

in part

20

198812025 Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project

(YKFP) Management

YKFP Yakima $1,262,548 $5,295,760 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 21

199506425 Policy/Technical Involvement and

Planning in the Yakima/Klickitat

Fisheries Project

WDFW Yakima $187,800 $580,472 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 21

199705100 Yakama Nation Yakima/Klickitat

Fisheries Project (YKFP) Yakima Side

Channels

YKFP Yakima $2,320,624 $6,281,719 Fundable BPA Crediting? -

High Priority

Agree - Fundable,

High Priority

22

199803400 Yakama Nation Yakima/Klickitat

Fisheries Project (YKFP) Reestablish

Safe Access into Tributaries of the

Yakima Subbasin

YKFP Yakima $0 $860,000 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 22

25022 YKFP Big Creek Passage & Screening WDFW Yakima $175,280 $205,280 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 23

25025 YKFP -- Secure Salmonid Spawning

and Rearing Habitat on the Upper

Yakima River

WDFW Yakima $2,300,000 $2,438,000 Fundable BPA Crediting?-

High Priority

Agree - Fundable 23

25023 Yakima-Klickitat Fisheries Project -

Manastash Creek Fish Passage and

Screening

YKFP -

WDFW

Yakima $0 $1,055,473 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 24

25024 Yakima-Klickitat Fisheries Project -

WILSON CREEK SNOWDEN

PARCEL ACQUISITION

YKFP -

WDFW

Yakima $206,580 $206,580 Fundable BPA Crediting? -

High Priority

Agree - Fundable 24
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

125

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin 2002 Request 3YR Estimate ISRP

Recommendation

CBFWA

Recommendation

ISRP

Comparison with

CBFWA

Page

Umatilla and Walla Walla Hatchery and Related Passage Proposals

198343500 Operate and Maintain Umatilla

Hatchery Satellite Facilities

CTUIR Umatilla $956,849 $3,948,549 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 25

198802200 Umatilla River Fish Passage

Operations

CTUIR Umatilla $343,979 $1,084,394 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 25

198903500 Umatilla Hatchery Operation and

Maintenance

ODFW Umatilla $917,559 $2,833,809 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 26

199000501 Umatilla Basin Natural Production

Monitoring and Evaluation Project

CTUIR Umatilla $300,716 $910,716 Fundable in Part High Priority Agree if funded

in part

26

200003900 Walla Walla Basin Natural Production

Monitoring and Evaluation Project

CTUIR Walla

Walla

$482,244 $1,470,244 Fundable in Part High Priority Agree if funded

 in part

27

199000500 Umatilla Fish Hatchery Monitoring

and Evaluation

ODFW Umatilla $626,178 $1,830,407 Not Fundable High Priority Disagree - Not

Fundable

27

198805302 Design and Construct Umatilla

Hatchery Supplement

CTUIR Umatilla $5,352,043 $5,352,043 Not Fundable High Priority Disagree - Not

Fundable

28

200003800 Design and Construct NEOH Walla

Walla Hatchery

CTUIR Walla

Walla

$2,850,000 $2,850,000 Not Fundable High Priority

(Three Step

Process)

Disagree - Not

Fundable

29

198902700 Power Repay Umatilla Basin Project BPA Umatilla $1,750,000 $5,250,000 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 30

198343600 Umatilla Basin Fish Facilities

Operation and Maintenance

Westland

Irrigation

District

Umatilla $498,512 $1,571,587 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 31

CRP, CREP, Buffer, and No-till Proposals

25014 Establish Riparian Buffer Systems Wasco

SWCD

Deschutes $67,119 $204,497 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 32

25080 Gilliam SWCD Riparian Buffers Gilliam

SWCD

John Day $75,086 $232,080 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 32

25073 Wheeler SWCD Riparian Buffer

Planning and Implementation

Wheeler

SWCD

John Day $75,086 $232,080 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 32

25006 Provide Coordination and Technical

Assistance to Watershed Councils and

Individuals in Sherman County, OR

Sherman

SWCD

John Day $95,670 $229,777 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 33
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

126

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin 2002 Request 3YR Estimate ISRP

Recommendation

CBFWA

Recommendation

ISRP

Comparison with

CBFWA

Page

199901000 Mitigate Effects Of Runoff & Erosion

On Salmonid Habitat In Pine Hollow

and Jackknife

Sherman

SWCD

John Day $41,980 $122,580 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 33

25047 Morrow County Buffer Initiative Morrow

SWCD

Umatilla $75,086 $232,080 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 34

25048 Accelerate the Application of Riparian

Buffers in the Upper Deschutes

Subbasin

Wy'East

RC&D

Deschutes $73,985 $218,619 Fundable Recommended

Action

Agree - Fundable 34

25077 Umatilla County Conservation Buffer

Project

Umatilla

SWCD

Umatilla $152,368 $470,954 Fundable Recommended

Action

Agree - Fundable 35

199401807 Garfield County Sediment Reduction

and Riparian Improvement Program

PCD Mainstem

Snake

$212,000 $642,500 Not Fundable High Priority Disagree - Not

Fundable

35

25050 Provide Incentives to convert to direct

seed/no-till farming in Sherman

County, Oregon

Sherman

SWCD

John Day $164,440 $481,320 Not Fundable Recommended

Action

Disagree - Not

Fundable

36

25099 Oregon CREP Improvement Project OWEB Mainstem

Columbia

$433,725 $1,153,725 Not Fundable Do Not Fund Agree - Do Not

Fund

37

Bull Trout

199405400 The Population Structure of Bull

Trout in the John Day River and

Abundance of Bull Trout in Mill

Creek.

ODFW John Day $86,400 $259,300 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 37

199405400 Bull Trout Abundance Monitoring in

the Lower Deschutes River formerly

"Bull Trout Genetics, Habitat

Needs, L.H. Etc. In Central And

N.E. Oregon"

CTWSRO Deschutes $137,000 $371,000 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 38

25053 Evaluate bull trout movements in the

Tucannon and Lower Snake rivers

USFWS -

IFRO

Mainstem

Snake

$81,626 $477,491 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 38

25012 Assessment of bull trout populations

in the Yakima River watershed.

WDFW Yakima $243,947 $558,947 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 39
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

127

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin 2002 Request 3YR Estimate ISRP

Recommendation

CBFWA

Recommendation

ISRP

Comparison with

CBFWA

Page

Lamprey

199402600 Pacific Lamprey Research and

Restoration

CTUIR Umatilla $520,464 $1,530,464 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 40

200005200 Upstream migration of Pacific

lampreys in the John Day River:

behavior, timing, and habitat

preferences

USGS/CRR

L

John Day $271,956 $746,956 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 41

25007 Determine lamprey species

composition, larval distribution and

adult abundance in the Deschutes

Subbasin

CTWSRO Deschutes $125,440 $341,382 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 41

25101 Use of Mainstem Habitats by Juvenile

Pacific Lamprey

PNNL Mainstem

Columbia

$89,238.00 $89,238.00 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 41

Hanford Reach Proposals 42

199406900 Estimate production potential of fall

chinook salmon in the Hanford Reach

of the Columbia River.

PNNL Mainstem

Columbia

$294,006 $867,597 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 43

199701400 Evaluation of Juvenile Fall Chinook

Stranding on the Hanford Reach

WDFW Mainstem

Columbia

$342,000 $769,000 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 43

25052 Sex Reversal in Hanford Reach Fall

Chinook Salmon

CRRL Mainstem

Columbia

$262,321 $415,359 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 44

25079 Integration and Construction of a GIS

Based 2-Dimensional

Hydraulic/Habitat Model for 51 miles

of Hanford Reach and Site of the

Columbia River

USFWS Mainstem

Columbia

$295,786 $550,786 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 45

25045 Determine effects of water levelinduced changes in rearing habitat on

the survival of juvenile fall chinook

salmon.

USGS Mainstem

Columbia

$192,977 $548,931 Fundable Recommended

Action

Agree - Fundable 46

25070 The Application of Geophysics to

Better Define Fall Chinook Salmon

Spawning Habitat Use in the Hanford

Golder

Assoc.,

PNNL

Mainstem

Columbia

$113,532 $240,572 Fundable Recommended

Action

Agree - Fundable 46
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

128

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin 2002 Request 3YR Estimate ISRP

Recommendation

CBFWA

Recommendation

ISRP

Comparison with

CBFWA

Page

25038 Effects of Hydropower Operations on

Fall Chinook Spawning Activity

PNNL Mainstem

Columbia

$139,338 $516,430 Fundable Recommended

Action

Agree - Fundable 47

25035 Evaluate adult fall chinook salmon

fallback at Priest Rapids Dam,

Columbia River

PNNL and

WDFW

Mainstem

Columbia

$603,065 $1,344,108 Fundable in Part Recommended

Action

Agree if funded

in part

47

25037 Evaluation of the effects of American

shad on upstream migration of

anadromous fishes at Priest Rapids

Dam

PNNL Mainstem

Columbia

$43,464 $297,910 Not Fundable Do Not Fund Agree -

Do Not Fund

48

ISRP and CBFWA Agree: Fundable through the Action Plan Process 49

25054 Increase Naches River In-stream

Flows By Purchasing Wapatox

Hydroelectric Project

YN Yakima $3,500,000 $3,500,000 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 49

25031 Naches River Water Treatment Plant

Intake Screening Project.

City of

Yakima

Yakima $1,657,500 $1,657,500 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 50

25017 FABRICATE AND INSTALL NEW

HUNTSVILLE MILL FISH

SCREEN

WDFW,

YSS

Walla

Walla

$102,217 $232,717 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 51

25015 Emergency Flow Augmentation for

Buck Hollow

Wasco

SWCD

Deschutes $29,886 $29,886 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 51

ISRP and CBFWA Agree: ISRP Fundable and CBFWA High Priority 52

Deschutes 52

25010 Regional Stream Conditions and

Stressor Evaluation

ODEQ Deschutes $180,000 $540,000 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 52

25074 Deschutes Water Exchange DRC Deschutes $1,000,000 $2,835,100 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 53

198805306 Hood River Production Program

(HRPP): Hatchery O&M - Portland

General Electric - Enron

PGE Deschutes $165,859 $557,854 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 53
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

129

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin 2002 Request 3YR Estimate ISRP

Recommendation

CBFWA

Recommendation

ISRP

Comparison with

CBFWA

Page

John Day 54

199703400 Monitoring Fine Sediment Grande

Ronde and John Day Rivers

CRITFC John Day $63,634 $200,604 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 54

200003100 North Fork John Day River Subbasin

Anadromous Fish Habitat

Enhancement Project

CTUIR John Day $293,894 $919,607 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 54

25069 John Day Salmonid Recovery

Monitoring Program

CTWSRO John Day $164,133 $280,140 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable if 55

199801800 John Day Watershed Restoration CTWSRO John Day $576,824 $1,752,026 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 55

199802200 Pine Creek Ranch CTWSRO John Day $172,000 $411,750 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 56

200001500 Oxbow Ranch Management and

Implementation

CTWSRO John Day $306,898 $534,998 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 56

199801700 Eliminate Gravel Push-up Dams in

Lower North Fork John Day

North Fork

John Day

Watershed

Council

John Day $128,000 $368,000 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 57

25088 Salmonid Population and Habitat

Monitoring in the Oregon Portion of

the Columbia Plateau

ODFW John Day $2,037,569 $5,831,991 Fundable Split into 3

proposals; 2 High

Priority, 1

Recommended

Action

Agree - Fundable 57

198402100 Protect and Enhance Anadromous

Fish Habitat in The John Day

Subbasin

ODFW John Day $448,500 $1,403,500 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable if 58

199306600 Oregon Fish Screening Project ODFW John Day $660,870 $2,042,683 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 59

199801600 Monitor Natural Escapement &

Productivity of John Day Basin Spring

Chinook

ODFW John Day $333,516 $992,998 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 59

25067 Manage Water Distribution in the

John Day Basin

OWRD John Day $251,261 $703,023 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 60

199908800 Columbia Plateau Water Right

Acquisition Program

OWT John Day $204,000 $647,500 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 60
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

130

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin 2002 Request 3YR Estimate ISRP

Recommendation

CBFWA

Recommendation

ISRP

Comparison with

CBFWA

Page

Umatilla

25059 Develop Progeny Marker for

Salmonids to Evaluate

Supplementation

CTUIR Umatilla $149,665 $500,477 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 61

195505500 Umatilla Tribal Fish & Wildlife

Enforcement

CTUIR Umatilla $163,369 $514,956 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 61

199506001 Protect and Enhance Wildlife Habitat

in Squaw Creek Watershed

CTUIR Umatilla $222,268 $690,674 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 62

25081 Improve Upstream Fish Passage in the

Birch Creek Watershed

ODFW Umatilla $300,410 $744,355 Fundable High Priority

(correcting passage

barriers)

Agree - Fundable 62

198902401 Evaluate Juvenile Salmonid

Outmigration and Survival in the

Lower Umatilla River Basin

ODFW Umatilla $286,427 $898,555 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 63

25055 Echo Meadows Artificial Recharge

Extended Groundwater and Surface

Water Modeling

PNNL Umatilla $390,283 $780,566 Fundable High Priority

(pollutant work)

Recommended

Action (modeling

effort)

Agree - Fundable 64

25029 Westland-Ramos Fish Passage and

Habitat Restoration Pilot Project

Westland

Irrigation

District

Umatilla $203,020 $1,287,100 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 65

Walla Walla 66

199601100 Walla Walla River Juvenile and Adult

Passage Improvements

CTUIR Walla

Walla

$2,856,000 $6,356,000 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 66

200002600 RAINWATER WILDLIFE AREA CTUIR Walla

Walla

$303,546 $908,038 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 66

200020139 Walla Walla River Fish Passage

Operations

CTUIR Walla

Walla

$109,551 $418,880 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 67

25066 Manage Water Distribution in the

Walla Walla River Basin

OWRD Walla

Walla

$552,525 $1,397,300 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 68

199802000 Assess Fish Habitat and Salmonids in

the Walla Walla Watershed in WA

WDFW Walla

Walla

$362,652 $863,652 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 69
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

131

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin 2002 Request 3YR Estimate ISRP

Recommendation

CBFWA

Recommendation

ISRP

Comparison with

CBFWA

Page

25082 Walla Walla River Flow Restoration WWBWC Walla

Walla

$478,000 $478,000 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 69

Mainstem Snake 70

25049 Numerically Simulating the

Hydrodynamic and Water Quality

Environment for Migrating Salmon in

the Lower Snake River

PNNL Mainstem

Snake

$207,360 $498,599 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 70

25064 Investigating passage of ESA-listed

juvenile fall chinook salmon at Lower

Granite Dam during winter when the

fish bypass system is inoperable.

USFWS;

USGS

Mainstem

Snake

$176,000 $438,000 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 71

199102900 Understanding the effects of summer

flow augmentation on the migratory

behavior and survival of fall chinook

salmon migrating through L. Granite

Res.

USFWS;

USGS

Mainstem

Snake

$630,375 $1,851,125 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 72

Palouse 73

25008 Resident Fish Stock Status in the

Palouse River and Upper Crab Creek

Watersheds, Washington.

WDFW Palouse $546,670 $1,503,152 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 73

Tucannon 73

200001900 Tucannon River Spring Chinook

Captive Broodstock Program

WDFW Tucannon $94,509 $342,009 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 73

Yakima 74

25026 Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat

Program (YTAHP)

Kittitas

County

Water P.

Yakima $2,022,760 $6,935,260 Fundable High Priority

(Objective 2 only)

Agree - Fundable 74

Yakima Screen Proposals 75

199105700 FABRICATE AND INSTALL

YAKIMA BASIN PHASE II FISH

SCREENS

WDFW,

YSS

Yakima $159,889 $179,889 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 75
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

132

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin 2002 Request 3YR Estimate ISRP

Recommendation

CBFWA

Recommendation

ISRP

Comparison with

CBFWA

Page

199200900 OPERATE & MAINTAIN

(O&M)YAKIMA BASIN PHASE II

FISH SCREENS

WDFW,

YSS

Yakima $148,557 $467,505 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 75

199503300 O&M Of Yakima Phase II Fish

Facilities*

USBR Yakima $66,037 $306,037 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 75

199107500 Yakima Phase II Screens -

Construction*

USBR Yakima $1,000,000 $1,190,000 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 76

198506200 Passage Improvement Evaluation PNNL Yakima $113,587 $347,059 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 77

More Yakima 77

25036 The Impact of Flow Regulation on

Riparian Cottonwood Ecosystems

in the Yakima River Basin.

BioQuest Yakima $225,495 $430,066 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 77

25013 Restore Riparian Corridor at Tapteal

Bend, Lower Yakima River

Tapteal

Greenway

Yakima $160,500 $177,000 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 78

25062 Growth Rate Modulation in Spring

Chinook Salmon Supplementation

NMFS Yakima $345,088 $345,088 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 79

199803300 Restore Upper Toppenish Watershed YN Yakima $268,517 $846,617 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 79

199901300 Ahtanum Creek Watershed

Assessment

YN Yakima $235,093 $765,093 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 80

199405900 Yakima Basin Environmental

Education

BOR Yakima $130,000 $397,000 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 80

199603501 Satus Watershed Restoration Project YN Yakima $352,966 $1,111,691 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 80

199705300 Toppenish-Simcoe Instream Flow

Restoration and Assessment

YN Yakima $306,830 $736,830 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 81

25021 Implement Actions to Reduce Water

Temperatures in the Teanaway Basin

WSDE Yakima $338,000 $652,025 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 81

Rock Creek 82

25068 Rock Creek watershed road and

riparian corridor improvement

project.

YN, KC,

BCC

Rock

Creek

$96,500 $289,500 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 82
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

133

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin 2002 Request 3YR Estimate ISRP

Recommendation

CBFWA

Recommendation

ISRP

Comparison with

CBFWA

Page

Mainstem Columbia 83

25056 Conduct Watershed Assessments for

Priority Watersheds on Private Lands

in the Columbia Plateau

OWEB Mainstem

Columbia

$1,259,725 $1,439,175 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 83

25060 Burbank Sloughs and Mainstem

Columbia River Shoreline/Side

Channel/Wetland Habitat Restoration

USFWS Mainstem

Columbia

$546,000 $776,000 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 83

199009200 Protect and Enhance the Wanaket

Wildlife Mitigation Area.

CTUIR Mainstem

Columbia

$223,465 $679,824 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 84

25011 Assess Riparian Condition Through

Spectrometric Imaging Of Riparian

Vegetation

ODEQ Mainstem

Columbia

$175,000 $360,000 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 84

25097 Salmon and Steelhead Habitat

Inventory and Assessment Project

(SSHIAP)

WDFW Mainstem

Columbia

$522,710 $945,260 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 85

Crab Creek 86

199106100 Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area (SLWA) WDFW Crab

Creek

$290,238 $845,512 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 86

25042 pygmy rabbit recovery - captive

breeding

WDFW Crab

Creek

$220,914 $461,118 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 86

25043 Northern Leopard Frog Distribution

and Habitat Association

WDFW Crab

Creek

$41,754 $156,354 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 87

199404400 Enhance, protect, and maintain

shrubsteppe habitat on the Sagebrush

Flat Wildlife Area (SFWA)

WDFW Crab

Creek

$908,375 $1,407,100 Fundable High Priority Agree - Fundable 87

ISRP Agrees with CBFWA: ISRP Fundable and CBFWA High Priority, but Crediting Issue with BPA 88

25003 FORREST RANCH ACQUISITION CTWSRO John Day $4,207,659 $4,510,009 Fundable BPA Crediting? -

High Priority

Agree - Fundable,

High Priority

88

25004 Acquisition of Wagner Ranch CTWSRO John Day $2,669,717 $2,737,717 Fundable BPA Crediting? -

High Priority

Agree - Fundable,

High Priority

88
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

134

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin 2002 Request 3YR Estimate ISRP

Recommendation

CBFWA

Recommendation

ISRP

Comparison with

CBFWA

Page

25086 Purchase Perpetual Conservation

Easement on Holliday Ranch and

Crown Ranch Riparian Corridors and

Uplands

ODFW John Day $5,459,520 $5,485,320 Fundable BPA Crediting? -

High Priority

Agree - Fundable,

High Priority

89

200002300 Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites -

Oregon, Horn Butte (Philippi

Property)

ODFW Umatilla $50,000 $1,465,000 Fundable BPA Crediting? -

High Priority

Agree - Fundable,

High Priority

90

200020116 Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites -

Oregon, Horn Butte Area (BAIC

Tract)

ODFW Plateau

Southeast

$5,390,000 $5,630,000 Fundable BPA Crediting? -

High Priority

Agree - Fundable,

High Priority

91

25078 Acquire Anadromous Fish Habitat in

the Selah Gap to Union Gap Flood

Plain, Yakima River Basin,

Washington

BOR Yakima $3,000,000 $9,000,000 Fundable BPA Crediting? -

High Priority

Agree - Fundable,

High Priority

91

199206200 Yakama Nation - Riparian/Wetlands

Restoration

YN Yakima $1,750,000 $5,250,000 Fundable BPA Crediting? -

High Priority

Agree - Fundable,

High Priority

92

25020 Acquire Rattlesnake Slope Addition Rocky Mtn.

Elk

Foundation

Yakima $3,542,500 $3,542,500 Fundable BPA Crediting? -

High Priority

Agree - Fundable,

High Priority

92

25002 Protect, enhance, and maintain habitat

on the Sunnyside Wildlife Area to

benefit wildlife and fish assemblages.

WDFW Yakima $418,874 $1,215,706 Fundable BPA Crediting? -

High Priority

Agree - Fundable,

High Priority

93

200002500 Eagle Lakes Ranch Acquisition And

Restoration

USFWS Mainstem

Columbia

$188,900 $1,278,900 Fundable BPA Crediting? -

High Priority

Agree - Fundable,

High Priority

93

25001 Acquire Sharp-tailed Grouse Habitat

at the Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area

WDFW Crab

Creek

$237,053 $274,953 Fundable BPA Crediting? -

High Priority

Agree - Fundable,

High Priority

94

25092 RESTORATION OF HEALTHY

WATERSHED TO PALOUSE

RIVER DRAINAGE IN IDAHO

IDFG Palouse $200,200 $9,730,200 Fundable in Part BPA Crediting? -

High Priority

Agree if funded

in part

94

25032 Wenas Wildlife Area Inholding

Acquisitions

WDFW Yakima $706,143 $716,143 Fundable in Part BPA Crediting? -

High Priority

Agree if funded

in part

95
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

135

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin 2002 Request 3YR Estimate ISRP

Recommendation

CBFWA

Recommendation

ISRP

Comparison with

CBFWA

Page

ISRP Agrees with CBFWA: ISRP Fundable and CBFWA Recommended Action

25027 An Assessment of Neotropical

Migratory and Resident Bird-Habitat

& Bird-Salmon Relationships in

Riparian Ecosystems in the Deschutes

Subbasin

NHI Deschutes $113,670 $323,990 Fundable Recommended

Action

Agree - Fundable

(higher priority)

96

25040 Collection of baseline measurements

of flow, temperature, channel

morphology, riparian condition, and

benthic macroinvertebrates, Trout

Creek, Oregon

USGS Deschutes $239,000 $599,000 Fundable Recommended

Action

Agree - Fundable 97

25009 Assess Watershed Health and

Coordinate Watershed Councils in

Wasco County, Oregon

Wasco

SWCD

Deschutes $70,290 $202,490 Fundable Recommended

Action,

Do Not Fund

(Objective 3 and

Fifteenmile Creek

portion of

Objective 5)

Agree - Fundable 97

25075 Momitoring and Evaluation of Buck

Hollow Hydrology

Wasco

SWCD

Deschutes $92,777 $115,871 Fundable Recommended

Action

Agree - Fundable

(higher priority)

98

25065 Forward Looking Infrared Radiometry

(FLIR) Thermal Imagery and Analysis

of Tucannon River, Touchet River,

and Mill Creek(FY2002)with followon 2003-04

WA

Ecology,

WQP

Walla

Walla

$231,000 $634,000 Fundable Recommended

Action

Agree - Fundable 98

25030 Factors limiting the shrubsteppe

raptor community in the Columbia

Plateau Province of eastern

Washington

WDFW Mainstem

Columbia,

Crab, and

Yakima

$16,580 $16,580 Fundable Recommended

Action

Agree - fundable 100

25033 Evaluate Restoration Potential of

Mainstem Habitat for Anadromous

Salmonids in the Columbia and Snake

Rivers

PNNL Mainstem

Columbia

$314,392 $1,120,402 Fundable Recommended

Action

Agree - fundable 100
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

136

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin 2002 Request 3YR Estimate ISRP

Recommendation

CBFWA

Recommendation

ISRP

Comparison with

CBFWA

Page

25039 Effects of agricultural conversion on

shrubsteppe wildlife and condition of

extant shrubsteppe habitat

WDFW Crab

Creek

$681,215 $2,006,030 Fundable Recommended

Action

Agree - Fundable 101

25046 A cooperative approach to evaluating

avian and mammalian responses to

shrubsteppe restoration in the Crab

Creek Subbasin

WDFW Crab

Creek

$141,184 $419,796 Fundable Recommended

Action

Agree - Fundable 101

ISRP Disagrees with CBFWA: ISRP Fundable and CBFWA Do Not Fund 102

25076 Enhancing Riparian Corridors

Sustainably With Integrated

Agroforestry

Institute for

WA's

Future

Walla

Walla

$1,270,000 $7,532,500 Fundable Do Not Fund Disagree -

Fundable

102

ISRP Fundable and CBFWA Do Not Fund - Policy Issue 103

25098 Characterize and Assess WildlifeHabitat Types and Structural

Conditions for Subbasins within the

Columbia Plateau Ecoprovince

NHI Mainstem

Columbia

$330,825 $848,695 Fundable Do Not Fund NA - Policy

Decision

103

25041 Wildlife Escape Ramps WDFW Crab

Creek

$52,185 $133,680 Fundable Do Not Fund NA - Policy

Decision

103

ISRP Agrees with CBFWA if Funded in Part 104

199404200 Trout Creek Habitat Restoration

Project

ODFW Deschutes $414,170 $1,264,443 Fundable in Part High Priority Agree if funded

 in part

104

199802800 Trout Creek Watershed Improvement

Project

JCSWCD Deschutes $465,100 $996,700 Fundable in Part High Priority Agree if funded

 in part

104

25093 Characterize Genetic Differences and

Distribution of Freshwater Mussels

CTUIR Umatilla $311,907 $1,032,410 Fundable in Part High Priority Agree if funded

 in part

105

199604601 Walla Walla Basin Fish Habitat

Enhancement

CTUIR Walla

Walla

$287,407 Fundable in Part High Priority Agree if funded

 in part

105

25028 John Day Upland Restoration CTWSRO John Day $399,595 $1,202,301 Fundable in Part Recommended

Action

Agree if funded

 in part

106

25058 Fish Passage Inventory and Corrective

Actions on WDFW Lands in The

Yakima Subbasin

WDFW Yakima $256,995 $1,918,051 Fundable in Part Recommended

Action

Agree if funded

 in part

107
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

137

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin 2002 Request 3YR Estimate ISRP

Recommendation

CBFWA

Recommendation

ISRP

Comparison with

CBFWA

Page

25095 Pesticides and the environmental

health of salmonids in the Yakima

subbasin.

NMFS/

NWFSC

Yakima $257,800 $825,800 Fundable in Part Recommended

Action

Agree if funded

 in part

107

ISRP Disagrees with CBFWA: ISRP Fundable in Part and CBFWA Do Not Fund 108

25100 Protect Normative Structure and

Function of Critical Aquatic and

Terrestrial Habitat

City of

Yakima

Yakima $2,499,000 $10,079,000 Fundable in Part Do Not Fund Disagree -

Fundable in Part;

Agree with

CBFWA

comments.

108

ISRP Disagrees with CBFWA: ISRP Not Fundable and CBFWA High Priority 109

25085 Eradication of brook trout from

Winom Creek to enhance bull trout

habitat.

USFS John Day $50,000 $150,000 Not Fundable High Priority Disagree - Not

Fundable

109

198710001 Enhance Umatilla River Basin

Anadromous Fish Habitat

CTUIR Umatilla $506,403 $1,596,437 Edit - Not

Fundable

High Priority Disagree - Not

Fundable

110

198710002 Umatilla Subbasin Fish Habitat

Improvement

ODFW Umatilla $759,300 $2,392,594 Edit - Not

Fundable

High Priority Disagree - Not

Fundable

111

199401806 Implement Tucannon River Model

Watershed Plan to Restore Salmonid

Habitat

Columbia

CD

Tucannon $352,625 $1,152,038 Not Fundable High Priority Disagree - Not

Fundable

112

25094 Restore Touchet River Watershed

Habitat to Support ESA listed Stocks

Columbia

CD

Walla

Walla

$343,912 $1,124,676 Not Fundable High Priority

(passive restoration

measures only)

Disagree - Not

Fundable

113

25072 Restore Tucannon River Riparian

Habitat: Wooten Wildlife Area

WDFW Tucannon $135,400 $852,600 Not Fundable High Priority

(removal of site)

Recommended

Action

(construction of

new site)

Disagree - Not

Fundable

114

ISRP Disagrees with CBFWA: ISRP Not Fundable and CBFWA Recommended Action 114

25005 Bighorn Sheep reintroduction to the

Warm Springs Reservation

CTWSRO Deschutes $70,862 $117,802 Not Fundable Recommended

Action

Disagree - Not

Fundable

114

25083 Special Status Wildlife Species Surveys

and Priority Habitat Assessment ...

ODFW Deschutes $100,000 $320,000 Not Fundable Recommended

Action

Disagree - Not

Fundable

115
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

138

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin 2002 Request 3YR Estimate ISRP

Recommendation

CBFWA

Recommendation

ISRP

Comparison with

CBFWA

Page

25051 Columbia Plateau Natural Resources

Collaborative (CPNRC)

NRCS John Day $823,200 $3,063,600 Not Fundable Recommended

Action

Disagree - Not

Fundable

116

25084 Develop GIS Layers for Generation

of Specific Natural Resource GIS

Maps and Analysis

ODFW John Day $111,000 $271,000 Not Fundable Recommended

Action

Disagree - Not

Fundable

117

25016 Assessment of habitat improvement

actions on water temperature,

streamflow, physical habitat, & aquatic

community health in the Birch Creek

Watershed

USGS Umatilla $403,000 $1,243,000 Not Fundable Recommended

Action

Disagree - Not

Fundable

118

25019 Tucannon River Roads, Cut and Fill

Slope Restoration

Pomeroy

Ranger

District

Tucannon $19,500 $52,500 Not Fundable Recommended

Action

Disagree - Not

Fundable

118

25034 Develop a Nutrient/Food-Web

Management Tool for WatershedRiver Systems

PNNL Yakima $376,382 $544,041 Not Fundable Recommended

Action

Disagree - Not

Fundable

119

25090 Determine Quantitative Values for the

Perpetual Timber Rights on the

WDFW Oak Creek and Wenas

Wildlife Areas.

WDFW Yakima $235,000 $235,000 Not Fundable Recommended

Action

Disagree - Not

Fundable

120

25063 Subbasin Planning Coordinator for

Oregon

OWEB Mainstem

Columbia

$100,225 $300,675 Not Fundable Recommended

Action

Disagree - Not

Fundable

120

25091 Mainstem habitats and aquatic

communities: assessment and

management options

USGS Mainstem

Columbia

$394,200 $1,164,200 Not Fundable Recommended

Action

Disagree - Not

Fundable

121

25089 The Effects of Agriculture on

Amphibians of the Columbia Plateau

WDFW Crab

Creek

$121,945 $301,945 Not Fundable Recommended

Action

Disagree - Not

Fundable

121
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

139

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin 2002 Request 3YR Estimate ISRP

Recommendation

CBFWA

Recommendation

ISRP

Comparison with

CBFWA

Page

ISRP and CBFWA Agree: Do Not Fund 122

25044 Application of Biological Assessment

Protocol to Evaluate Passage of

Juvenile Salmonids Through Culverts

in the Yakima Basin

PNNL Yakima $95,553 $306,823 Not Fundable Do Not Fund Agree - Not

Fundable

122

25061 John Day Fish Passage Barrier

Inventory

OWEB John Day $152,450 $266,788 Not Fundable Do Not Fund Agree - Not

Fundable

122

25087 Desolation Creek Rehabilitation and

Meadow Restoration

USFS John Day $40,000 $190,000 Not Fundable Do Not Fund Agree - Not

Fundable

123
ISRP 2001-8 Final Columbia Plateau Review

1

________________________________________

\\nwppcu3\fish\em\ww\isrp\1 final isrp reports\isrp 2001-8 final col plat.doc