Independent Scientific Review Panel

for the Northwest Power Planning Council

851 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1100 

Portland, Oregon 97204 

isrp@nwppc.org

FY2002 Blue Mountain and Mountain Snake Provincial Review: Part II 

Lower Snake River Compensation Plan 

Preliminary Proposal Review 

Richard N. Williams, Chair

Jack Griffith 

Lyman McDonald 

John D. McIntyre 

Brian Riddell 

Bruce Ward 

Ray White 

Richard Whitney

Erik Merrill, Staff

December 21, 2001 

ISRP 2001-12B 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

i 

Lower Snake River Compensation Plan 

Preliminary Proposal Review 

The Review Process ........................................................................................ 1

LSRCP Production Targets............................................................................. 2

General Findings of the ISRP review ............................................................. 4

Multiple Mandates ........................................................................................................... 4 

Program Success To Date ................................................................................................ 5 

Proposal Preparation and the ISRP Review Process........................................................ 5 

Stock Origin and Stock Transfers.................................................................................... 6 

LSRCP Monitoring and Database Issues......................................................................... 6 

LSRCP Columbia Plateau Proposals .............................................................. 7

ISRP Final Review Comments: ....................................................................................... 9 

LSRCP Blue Mountain and Mountain Snake Proposals .............................. 14 

Clearwater...................................................................................................................... 14 

Salmon River ................................................................................................................. 17

Imnaha............................................................................................................................ 22 

Grande Ronde ................................................................................................................ 23 

Snake Hells Canyon....................................................................................................... 29 

Asotin............................................................................................................................. 30 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

1 

 Lower Snake River Compensation Plan 

Preliminary Proposal Review

The Review Process 

The Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) is a complex program to compensate for 

losses of fish in the Columbia and Snake Rivers due to construction and operation of the 

hydroelectric system. The LSRCP oversees operation and maintenance expenses for ten 

hatcheries and sixteen satellite facilities. The projects include adult trapping and juvenile 

acclimation and release facilities on/or for the lower Snake, Salmon, Clearwater, Walla Walla, 

Grande Ronde, Imnaha, Tucannon, Touchet, and Walla Walla subbasins. The program was 

initiated in response to the Water Resources Development Act of 1976, Public Law (P.L.) 94-587, 

which Congress adopted to mitigate and compensate for fish and wildlife resource losses caused 

by the construction and operation of the four federal dams in the lower Snake River -- Ice Harbor 

(1961), Lower Monumental (1969), Little Goose (1970), and Lower Granite (1975) dams. The 

fisheries mitigation provisions of the act have evolved into a highly complex program involving 

several co-managers. 

In 1998, the U.S. Congress’ Senate-House conference report on the fiscal year 1999 Energy and 

Water Development Appropriations bill directed the ISRP to annually review all fish and wildlife 

projects, programs, or measures included in federal agency budgets that are reimbursed by 

Bonneville. The LSRCP is a major component of this portion of Bonneville’s program and, thus, 

is subject to review by the ISRP to determine whether LSRCP proposals are consistent with the 

criteria specified for direct program projects in the 1996 amendment. 

In April 1999, the ISRP completed its first “Reimbursable” review, which was limited to a 

description of the program elements and recommendations to reschedule and improve the review 

for the next year (see www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp99-1.htm). This review responds to 

many of the recommendations raised by the ISRP in its first report. For example, the LSRCP 

submitted proposal forms consistent with those submitted for Fish and Wildlife Program 

solicitations, the ISRP review criteria is the same as used for the provincial review, and the 

review was staggered and incorporated with the provincial reviews. In addition, the LSRCP 

proponents participated in the provincial review workshop, attending the site visits and providing 

presentations. This was a good step in presenting at least a subset of the multitude of salmon 

recovery effort in one venue for the benefit of the reviewers and the project sponsors. 

In the spring of 2001, six LSRCP proposals were submitted for review in the Columbia Plateau 

Provincial Review. These Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) proposals 

covered LSRCP activities in the Tucannon and Walla Walla subbasins and at Lyons Ferry 

Hatchery. The ISRP released a preliminary review of those projects on July 13, 2001. The ISRP’s 

preliminary recommendation on the proposals was “fundable if additional information is provided 

that adequately addresses the ISRP’s comments.” The LSRCP provided responses to the ISRP 

concerns. The ISRP’s comments on those responses are provided below. The ISRP defers its 

final recommendation on the Columbia Plateau Province proposals until completion of the entire 

LSRCP review. 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

2 

In July of 2001, 20 more LSRCP proposals were submitted for review in the Blue Mountain and 

Mountain Snake provincial reviews. Due to time constraints and the complexity of the program, 

the ISRP was unable to review these on the same schedule as other proposals in those provinces; 

consequently, this report constitutes the ISRP’s preliminary review. The LSRCP project sponsors 

and other interested parties have until January 24, 2002 to respond to the ISRP’s preliminary 

comments. Please provide comments to Kendra Phillips by January 24, 2001; 

kphillips@nwppc.org; (503) 222-5161. The ISRP will consider the responses and issue a final 

report on the entire LSRCP by February 22, 2002. 

LSRCP Production Targets 

The LSRCP is built around production targets, which were derived from estimates of losses in 

anadromous fish production as a result of the construction and operation of the Lower Snake 

River hydrosystem facilities. The basis for the LSRCP production targets was an estimated 

turbine mortality of 15% of the emigrating smolts at each of the four Lower Snake dams (Figure 

1). The cumulative losses were estimated to be 48% of the pre-dam Snake River chinook salmon 

and steelhead runs (Table 1). The LSRCP called for the construction of hatcheries to produce 

sufficient juveniles to compensate for that loss. Compensation focused on replacing adult 

spring/summer and fall chinook and summer steelhead. However, there were other anadromous 

species (coho and sockeye) still returning to the basin at the time of dam construction.1

 Congress 

authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to construct the facilities, Bonneville to repay the 

treasury for the cost of the program from revenues generated by power sales, and the USFWS or 

NMFS to administer the program. 

 

Figure 1. Order of smolt losses at the four lower Snake River dams. 

 

 

1

 It is worth noting today more than twenty years later that coho salmon went extinct in the Snake River 

basin in the early 1980s, and sockeye salmon were listed as endangered under the ESA in 1991. An 

expensive rescue effort focusing on captive brood technology has kept Snake Basin from virtual extinction, 

but perhaps not functional extinction. The extent of adult sockeye returns, if any, over the next few years 

to the Snake basin will probably indicate the ultimate fate of that program. 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

3 

 

Table 1. Computation of adult anadromous fish losses associated with the four Lower Snake 

River dams and locks. (Source: Corps of Engineers 1975) 

 Fall Spring/Summer Steelhead 

 Chinook Chinook trout 

Estimated Snake River run 32,663 122,200 114,800 

Adult losses attributed to 18,3003

 58,700 55,100 

the Lower Snake Projects2

 

2 Estimated Snake River run times 48% (total estimated turbine-related losses). 

3

For fall chinook, formula for adult loss calculation is (Snake R. run minus 5,000 adults) * 48% plus 5,000 adults. The 

5,000 adults is credited for those that spawned in the reach inundated by the reservoirs – that loss was direct and 

therefore added in directly to compute the total loss.

The plan also calls for resident trout production to compensate for the loss of angler days when 

the dams inundated about 140 miles of spawning habitat. In addition to the adult return goals 

identified in the compensation plan, the LSRCP also has responsibilities to comply with the ESA 

and to meet tribal trust responsibilities. Under the ESA, LSRCP actions are not to jeopardize 

listed species. Fish hatchery production has been adjusted where appropriate to meet ESA 

requirements. 

According to the compensation plan, the LSRCP will continue efforts to maintain non-listed 

chinook salmon, steelhead, and rainbow trout programs under Section 7 of the ESA for future 

compensation options. However, as endemic stocks are developed, many of the program’s nonlocal stocks will likely be phased out and replaced with local populations. 

Prior to the current review process involving the ISRP, the LSRCP conducted its own internal 

programmatic reviews, the first in 1990 (Herrig 1990) after roughly a decade of operation, and a 

second larger in-depth review by the USFWS in 1998 (Herrig 1998). During that symposium, 

LSRCP-funded fisheries scientists summarized and addressed the status of their projects dealing 

with steelhead, spring and summer chinook, and fall chinook. Two panels, one of seven 

independent scientists and another of seven stakeholders, provided comments throughout and at 

the end of the review. 

In most years, the LSRCP Hatchery Program and the LSRCP mitigation efforts have not been 

able to meet their goals, including adult returns above Lower Granite Dam, the numbers of adults 

needed for broodstock collection, and juvenile production targets. Thus, at a programmatic level, 

the LSRCP has failed to compensate for the losses of habitat and anadromous production caused 

by construction and operation of the Lower Snake river dams. 

The original goal of the LSRCP was to compensate for the loss of 48% of the juveniles migrating 

downstream through the system; the other 52% of the run was expected to be maintained with the 

mitigation modifications such as installation of turbine intake screens, flip-lip spillway 

construction at the dams, barging/trucking smolts, and habitat improvement work. Based on the 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

4 

1998 Status Review assessments, participants concluded that neither the (compensated) hatchery, 

nor the naturally spawning chinook populations have done as well as expected. Many of the 

chinook programs are no longer production-oriented programs as envisioned in the authorizing 

legislation, but rather are supplementation-oriented programs, due to the depressed status of the 

donor stocks. Steelhead (compensated) hatchery populations have done quite well in a number of 

years, whereas the naturally spawning populations have deteriorated to the point that all endemic 

populations in the Snake River basin are now listed under the ESA. The returns remain well 

below pre-dam levels. 

Given the ESA status of Snake River basin anadromous stocks, and the increasing focus of this 

region’s artificial production activities on supplementation and conservation issues, a question 

arises about the present day applicability of the original authorizing legislation for the LSRCP. 

The original directives do not seem as relevant today given these constraints, as they were likely 

viewed in the early 1980s. Whether the mismatch between the original authorizing language and 

the tasks that the Lower Snake River Compensation Program faces today creates an obstacle to 

the program’s ability to address present concerns is not known by the ISRP, however this may be 

a question that is worth investigating at a policy level. 

General Findings of the ISRP review 

A major concern for these programs is the difficulty in assessing numerous proposals, objectives, 

and agencies involved in the lower Snake geographic region. The fragmentation of proposals, 

responsibilities, and monies leaves a strong sense of uncertainty that the sum of these fragments is 

a sound scientific program and one that we can learn from. The set of proposals submitted leaves 

the onus on the reviewers to make this assessment where the responsibility should certainly be on 

the program proponents to demonstrate this. The problem stems from major programs (ESA, 

LSRCP, FWP) and multiple agencies, with both common and singular interests, proposing a 

multitude of projects ... that sum to a very large cost. Our sense after these reviews is that there 

is lots of opportunity for redundancy (how much money is being provided for coordination 

alone?) and inefficiency. After all these reviews, the ISRP is uncertain that the proposals 

constitute a comprehensive and sufficient program, that standardized procedures and data 

protocols are being applied, and that the appropriate analyses are being conducted and reported. 

The latter is the only true means to test that the data is adequate and/or that an issue has not been 

overlooked. 

A more programmatic review of this region may be the only means to really review whether a 

sound scientific program underlies all this work and is appropriate for the funds being provided 

from several sources. Again, these proposals frequently refer to experimental management, but 

there is no indication of what the experiments are or decisions to be made depending on 

outcomes. It simply refers to trial and error again. True adaptive management requires a defined 

experimental framework and testable hypotheses, which were not evident in the proposals. 

Multiple Mandates 

In the Columbia Plateau response, WDFW states “... we intend to maintain the hatchery 

mitigation program and its resulting fisheries as congressionally mandated under the LSRCP.” 

The mitigation, the ISRP review, the FWP, and the ESA are all congressionally mandated, and it 

is not clear that program elements from one should preclude efforts to meet the others. It is also 

important for the technical credibility of the Columbia Basin overall program to ensure that 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

5 

hatchery based program goals are not at cross-purposes with goals of other programs. Many 

relevant issues are being addressed in the Lower Snake River Compensation Program reviewed 

here, but strict adherence to the original compensation goals may conflict with requirements of 

the Endangered Species Act, and wild fish protection goals. For example, the original authorizing 

LSRCP mandate does not provide a mechanism to factor in the current ecological (freshwater and 

marine) and economic conditions. 

Program Success To Date 

At a program level, the LSRCP mitigation efforts have not been able to meet their goals to 

compensate for the losses of habitat and anadromous production caused by construction and 

operation of the Lower Snake river dams, which the program has freely acknowledged in its own 

internal reviews (Herrig 1990; 1998). The program has fallen short in most years for adult 

returns above Lower Granite Dam, the numbers of adults needed for broodstock collection, and 

juvenile production targets. One of the conclusions from the from the 1998 USFWS Status 

Review Symposium of the LSRCP was that the program needed to rely on science-based 

management and adaptive management to be successful and that it was somewhat handicapped in 

doing this by the strong mitigation language in the original authorizing legislation. 

Proposal Preparation and the ISRP Review Process 

The Lower Snake River Compensation Program projects are relatively new to the BPA-CouncilISRP review process and many of the LSRCP project sponsors are finding the transition from 

their previous funding and review process a difficult one. CBFWA project sponsors had similar 

difficulties for the first several years with the review process and proposal preparation using the 

BPA-NPPC proposal format. However, CBFWA has been very proactive in educating and 

assisting its members toward preparing higher quality more informative proposals. The ISRP has 

noted and commented favorably on the increased quality of proposals during the provincial 

review process. 

The BPA-Council proposal format calls for review information that provides biological 

descriptions and justification for program and project actions, in addition to statutory justification. 

Many of the LSRCP projects did not provide adequate biological descriptions and justifications, 

and relied too much on the LSRCP authorizing policy statements to justify their projects and 

actions. 

Many of proposals were highly repetitive containing identical rationales, components, and so on. 

For much of the required information on the LSRCP proposal this was probably warranted and 

efficient. However, in some instances, the repetition appears to have been overdone so that it 

obscured individual characteristics of some of the projects, and more importantly, it may have 

prevented the careful thought that the personnel of individual projects should be applying to the 

purposes, planning, conduct, and evaluation of the work being done. The individuality of projects 

and of the people who conduct them is important for assessing prospects for success and should 

be more evident in the proposals. 

Another general problem with the LSRCP proposals occurred in the section on project history. 

Many proposals merely referenced past reports without summarizing the content of those reports 

and adding pertinent information that may not yet have been formally published. Lacking 

information on project history, the proposals could not be adequately evaluated. Additionally, for 

many proposals, names of project personnel were listed, but their qualifications were not shown. 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

6 

Stock Origin and Stock Transfers 

Stock transfers have been discouraged as a management tool, yet an inter-basin transfer of Rapid 

River fish is practiced in this program. The Lower Snake River Compensation Program uses a 

mix of native and non-native broodstocks, the latter ranging from Lower Columbia River origin 

(Carson) spring chinook to nearly all of the steelhead stocks under culture through the program. 

With respect to the Rapid River spring chinook, other than as an available source of spawn to fill 

the hatchery capacity, how is the continued use of this non-native stock justified? The LSRCP 

steelhead stocks are native to the upper Snake River above Hells Canyon Dam, but are non-native 

with respect to the locations where they are outplanted in the Salmon and Clearwater systems. 

What effect does the use of a non-native stock have on success or failure of LSRCP projects? 

The goals of rebuilding populations through stocking where wild broodstock are taken and 

returned at rates that have been, for the most part, below replacement, and stocking to provide 

recreational opportunity are contradictory to wild stock protection and restoration. All sources of 

mortality on wild stocks should be removed to attempt recruitment above replacement. One way 

to increase the science-based management of the LSRCP facilities and program as a whole would 

be to document the sources of wild fish mortality, measured or modeled, that arise from hatchery 

operations, including residualism, catch-and-release angling, reduction in reproductive success, or 

other. This could demonstrate the benefits of supplementation, if evidence of rebuilding was 

apparent.

LSRCP Monitoring and Database Issues 

Finally, all LSRCP hatcheries need to provide evidence in their proposals that monitoring data are 

stored in an appropriate consistent database and are available through a distributed system via the 

Internet. The data and evaluation should be consistent with the Dworshak use of the Idaho FRO 

system (see Task 3.c in Proposal 200101) and any database in use by the Oregon Evaluation 

Studies (Proposal 200109). Results must be described in the proposal even if the data are 

collected and analyzed by a different project. 

References 

Herrig, D. 1990. A review of the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Hatchery Program. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Report, AFF1/LSR-90-06. Boise, Idaho. 

Herrig, D, et al. 1998. Lower Snake River Compensation Program Status Review Symposium. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Boise, Idaho. 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

7 

LSRCP Columbia Plateau Proposals

The Columbia Plateau portion of the program, as presented to the ISRP, was described in three 

parts. The first part was for the overall program at Lyons Ferry; the second part described the 

Tucannon River portion of the program, and the third part described the Walla Walla River 

portion. 

Lyons Ferry - Mainstem Snake 

Project ID: 200121 

Evaluation of salmonids released in the Snake River of Washington under the LSRCP Program 

Target Species: Fall Chinook, Summer Steelhead 

FY02 Request: $173,850 

Short Description: Rear, release and evaluate fall chinook salmon and summer steelhead as part 

of the LSRCP mitigation program in a changing ESA environment.

Project ID: 200124 

Lyons Ferry Complex (Lyons Ferry and Tucannon Hatchery) Operations and Maintenance 

Target Species: Oncorhynchus mykiss, summer steelhead and resident rainbow trout, 

Oncoryhnchs tshawytscha, fall chinook 

FY02 Request: $519,242 

Short Description: Restore Snake River Fall Chinook and steelhead fisheries and populations 

through release of yearling and sub-yearling smolts produced at Lyons Ferry Hatchery and 

provide recreational opportunities for catchable rainbow trout. 

These two proposals are for WDFW to continue operation of the Lyons Ferry Hatchery and 

associated monitoring and evaluation, as part of the LSCRP. The Lyons Ferry Hatchery serves as 

a central operational base for a complex of facilities, including the Tucannon Hatchery, and a 

system of acclimation ponds. Salmon and steelhead from individual parts of the complex are 

released into the Snake River proper, Tucannon River, and Walla Walla River (steelhead only).

The Plan is intended to produce 18,300 fall chinook salmon adults, 1152 Tucannon River spring 

chinook salmon adults, and 4656 summer steelhead adults back to the area of their release as 

smolts. An additional program goal is to produce and stock catchable sized fish to provide 67, 

500 angler days of recreation. 

Tucannon Hatchery 

Project ID: 200123 

LSRCP Tucannon River Spring Chinook/Summer Steelhead Production and Evaluation Program 

Target Species: Spring Chinook Salmon, Summer Steelhead 

FY02 Request: $201,260 

Short Description: Rear, release and evaluate the spring chinook and summer steelhead LSRCP 

programs. Evaluate the effects of the programs on natural populations, and evaluate the 

development of a local origin wild steelhead broodstock for use in the program. 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

8 

Project ID: 200125 

Lyons Ferry Complex (Lyons Ferry and Tucannon Hatchery) Operations and Maintenance 

Target Species: Oncorhynchus mykiss, summer steelhead and resident rainbow trout, 

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, spring chinook 

FY02 Request: $299,116 

Short Description: Restore Tucannon River spring chinook and steelhead fisheries and 

populations through release of yearling smolts produced at Lyons Ferry Hatchery and provide 

recreational opportunities for catchable rainbow trout 

Spring chinook salmon. Spring chinook salmon are produced in two programs for the Tucannon 

Basin: LSRCP supplementation, and a BPA funded captive brood stock project (Project # 

200001900). Supplementation fish are produced by trapping about 100 adult spring chinook 

salmon from the Tucannon River at the Tucannon Fish Hatchery and hauling them to Lyons Ferry 

Hatchery where they are spawned and their progeny reared for one year. All fish are then marked 

and transported back to Tucannon Fish Hatchery for rearing and release. 

The program includes monitoring and evaluation of adult run size to the Tucannon River, 

trapping and using only brood fish that will help maintain the genetic integrity of the population 

(excludes strays), estimating juvenile survivals by age-class, abundance of migrating smolts, 

smolt size, and comparative performance of supplementation production with captive broodstock 

production (BPA Project # 2000001900). 

Fall chinook salmon – Monitoring of fall chinook salmon includes counts of adults in the 

Tucannon River. Carcass samples and coded-wire tags help to document the origin of spawners, 

and smolts are counted in the lower river. 

Summer steelhead – The proposal reported that no numeric goals for returning adult summer 

steelhead were included in the LSCRP, but steelhead are reared and released in the Tucannon 

River to provide harvest opportunity. Later in the proposal, however, it was reported that the 

overall program attempts to return 4,656 steelhead adults to the Snake River in Washington. 

Walla Walla 

Project ID: 200122 

LSRCP Walla Walla basin Summer Steelhead Evaluation Program 

Sponsor: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Province: Columbia Plateau 

Subbasin: Walla Walla 

Target Species: Spring Chinook Salmon, Summer Steelhead 

FY02 Request: $98,490 

Short Description: Evaluate the summer steelhead LSRCP program. Evaluate the effects of the 

programs on natural populations, and evaluate the development of a local origin wild steelhead 

broodstock for use in the program. 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

9 

Project ID: 200126 

Lyons Ferry Complex (Lyons Ferry and Tucannon Hatchery) Operations and Maintenance 

Sponsor: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Province: Columbia Plateau 

Subbasin: Walla Walla 

FY02 Request: $198,875 

Target Species: Oncorhynchus mykiss, summer steelhead and resident rainbow trout 

Short Description: Restore steelhead fisheries and populations through release of yearling 

smolts produced at Lyons Ferry Hatchery and provide recreational opportunities for catchable 

rainbow trout. 

The Walla Walla portion of the program is a steelhead project. Goals include: 1) establishing 

brood stock(s); 2) maintaining and enhancing natural populations; 3) returning adults to the 

LSRCP area; and, 4) improving or re-establishing sport and tribal fisheries. Lyons Ferry 

Hatchery releases summer steelhead smolts into the Walla Walla and Touchet rivers. In regard to 

the goal to establish broodstock, the reviewers support the ongoing regional effort to ensure that 

only appropriate local stocks be used as hatchery brood fish. 

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Defer final recommendation until review of the entire LSRCP is complete. 

General Comments 

The authors generally did a good job putting the material together describing, to the program’s 

credit, a substantial commitment to monitoring program elements including hatchery practices, 

size and time at release, adult returns, smolt survival during migration, relative survival of 

hatchery and wild fish, and variability in brood stocks. Although the Tucannon and Walla Walla 

subbasin summaries contain some data on stock status, the summaries and proposals need to 

include detailed results concerning successes and failures in meeting the program’s numerical 

goals. The proposals should include sufficient amounts of these data and analyses to stand on its 

own in a technical review. 

Although most of responses adequately addressed the ISRP’s concerns, some of the responses 

could have been more helpful. In several instances, for example, the respondents referred the 

ISRP to other documents or publications to search for the information needed to answer a 

question. In one instance, the authors did not produce the desired data because the information is 

to be included in a yet to be prepared publication. Presentation of these data to clarify an issue 

for the ISRP would not preclude publication at a later date. 

In response to questions regarding the program’s effectiveness in meeting the goals, the authors 

reported that the steelhead program sometimes exceeded the goal by as many as 10, 000 fish. 

When this happens wouldn’t it be prudent to consider reducing the size of the program to prevent 

further jeopardy to wild fish? The respondent’s did not make clear the program’s effectiveness in 

meeting goals for chinook salmon. 

Some estimates of harvest rate were presented in the response. Although rates for chinook (up to 

6% for springs, up to 35% for falls) may be considered low, the impact of these rates on severely 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

10 

depressed spring and fall chinook may be profound. Rates for steelhead were reported to be up to 

50%. 

Specific Comments 

Additional review comments for consideration below are numbered according to their sequence 

in the WDFW response. 

1. The ISRP asked whether monitoring of the trout sport fishery has been conducted to determine 

where it is with respect to the compensation goal. The WDFW response indicates that creel 

surveys of the steelhead fishery were conducted from 1984-1986 and resident trout in 1985. 

Goals for adult returns of steelhead have been met nearly every year. The creel surveys showed 

that the angler day goals for resident trout were exceeded during the survey year. 

ISRP Final Comment: A lot of things can change in 15 years, especially considering one year as 

the index. The ISRP suggests that a periodic monitoring plan be developed that would identify 

any trends in angler participation over the years. Evidently, it is possible to estimate the numbers 

of adult steelhead returning annually. These numbers should be provided in future proposals. 

With respect to chinook, the response is adequate. Again, this information should be provided in 

future proposals. 

2. The ISRP asked for a description of how past results have influenced project implementation. 

Have plans changed direction because monitoring trends show the need. In response to this 

request, WDFW provides a lengthy description of modifications that have been made in the 

details of the program. 

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate. 

3. The ISRP asked for information, where available, on the size of the 2001 spring chinook runs 

into the Tucannon and Walla Walla rivers as pertinent to the LSRCP performance. 

In response WDFW provides a table showing numbers of spring chinook counted at several 

points during the years 1986 through 2000. They also conclude that the run in 2001 responded to 

ocean conditions in the same positive way as other stocks in the Snake and Columbia basins. 

 

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate. 

4. The ISRP raised a question about how these hatcheries are addressing the need for more 

information on rates of straying and the need to reduce it. The WDFW response describes several 

specific actions intended to assist in determining straying rates of steelhead released from these 

facilities. Coded wire tags are applied so as to identify each release group. Freeze brands are also 

used to identify release locations and groups. With spring chinook and effort is being made to 

ensure that all hatchery releases are marked so they can be distinguished from wild fish. All 

yearling fall chinook released from hatcheries are currently marked. Subyearling fall chinook are 

for the most part released above Lower Granite Dam by the Nez Perce tribe. It is expected that 

most will return to the Snake River basin, because they are acclimated prior to release. 

 

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate, in that the requested information is provided. 

However, the information on fall chinook subyearlings is not reassuring, as suggested in a recent 

article by Kenaston, Lindsay, and Schroeder in the most recent North American Journal of 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

11 

Fisheries Management (21:765-773), where steelhead that were acclimated showed no better 

return responses than fish that were not acclimated. 

5. The ISRP asked what comparisons will be made in the evaluation of Curl Lake acclimation. 

The WDFW response indicates that in spite of the acclimation program, intended to shift 

spawning upstream, the concentration of redds has shifted downstream. Returns in 2001 may help 

clarify some of the questions regarding homing abilities and distribution of fish from Curl Lake. 

It is unlikely that studies will continue into the future, given management policies that are in 

effect. 

 

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate. See the previous item 4. 

6. The ISRP suggested that the results for the spring chinook captive brood stock program should 

be included in the same proposal as the LSRCP program. The WDFW indicates that there is little 

to report on the captive brood stock program. The first four-year old females will be spawned in 

the fall of 2001. Only after that would it be possible to compare the two programs. 

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate. 

 

7. The ISRP asked for a description of the exercise experiment that is proposed to determine 

whether exercise of juveniles prior to release will increase their rate of survival. The WDFW 

response describes an experiment involving two large rearing ponds. One group (control) will be 

reared using standard velocities (ca. 0.2 Body Lengths per second [BL/s]), while the exercised 

group will be submitted to various water velocities (in the range of 0.75 to 1.5 BL/s for 6 to 8 

hours per day) five days a week until transfer to the Curl Lake Acclimation Pond. Velocities will 

be slowly increased each week by adjusting the angle of the water entering the pond. The target 

number for each group is in the range of 40,000 to 50,000 fish per brood year. Each group will be 

tagged with coded wire tags with a unique code. From each group another 500 fish will be 

marked with PIT tags before release into Curl Lake. ANOVA is proposed for the statistical 

analysis of differences in mean fish size, survival through the dams and survival to adult returns 

of spawners. The study is proposed to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. 

ISRP Final Comment: There could be considerable saving in time and expense if a way could be 

found to provide replicate control and experimental groups within a year. 

8. The ISRP asked for a description of methods used to monitor the results of planting salmon 

carcasses in streams to provide nutrients in an effort o increase productivity. The WDFW 

response suggests that the effort has been limited to placing in the stream carcasses of fish 

spawned in the hatchery. The program will depend upon studies elsewhere to apply to the LSRCP 

efforts. 

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate. 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

12 

9. The ISRP commented that the LSRCP goals include prevention of deleterious effects on 

naturally spawning stocks, but noticed little discussion of the option of discontinuing stocking of 

hatchery fish. WDFW responds that many modifications have been made in the program. They 

mention discontinuing stocking in Asotin Creek as one example, and reduction of numbers 

stocked in some streams. They are phasing into the use of local brood stock in two locations and 

are exploring a third. They have attempted to maintain stock integrity with the use of specific 

mating protocols. 

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate. 

10. The ISRP commented that there should be a discussion in the proposal of the factors and data 

that enter into the process of deciding how many fish to stock. WDFW provides a brief 

description of the CRFMP but recommended that the ISRP obtain additional information 

elsewhere. The CRFMP arose from the U.S. V Oregon court decision. The CRFMP process 

includes a Technical Advisory Committee, a Production Advisory Committee and a Policy 

Committee, each comprised of representatives of the parties to the suit. The intent of this plan is 

to provide management guidelines as well as hatchery production and harvest allocation 

requirements to ensure that Columbia River fisheries resources are protected, managed and 

enhanced for future generations, and to protect federally secured treaty tribal rights to their share 

of the harvestable fish. While the CRFMP has expired, a sequence of two-year agreements have 

been used that address hatchery production, fish marking and harvest levels and harvest sharing 

until such time as a revised CRFMP is completed and agreed to by the parties. 

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate. 

11. The ISRP (apparently) referred to Subobjective 7.2.1 concerning fall chinook adult return 

rates to SE Washington, and impacts from ocean and downriver fisheries and the use of CWT in 

this evaluation. The WDFW response states that all yearling fall chinook and some subyearlings 

produced by Lyons Ferry hatchery are marked with coded wire tags for evaluation of harvest, 

straying, and adult spawning escapement and hatchery returns. Ocean harvest has been and will 

continue to be included as part of the evaluation of success of the mitigation program. 

Periodically, all ocean and downriver harvests are examined and evaluated for their effect on 

meeting mitigation and recovery goals. Results are included in the annual monitoring and 

evaluation reports. Citation to a published report in which results are reported is provided (No. 

Amer. J. Fish. Mgmt. 17:638-651). 

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate. 

12. The ISRP inquired about monitoring for fall chinook adults and juveniles in the Tucannon 

River. The WDFW response says that redd counts are conduced annually in the lower Tucannon 

River. A table is provided. Carcasses have been examined, showing a hatchery origin (Lyons 

Ferry and Umatilla). A smolt trap operated on the lower Tucannon River has shown that natural 

production is highly variable, with counts between 100-15,000 smolts, while redd counts 

remained rather constant from year to year. They plan to publish the data in the near future. 

WDFW suspects that survival of juveniles in the river is variable because of due to channel 

instability and sediment input from Pataha Creek. 

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate. 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

13 

13. The ISRP said that the response should clarify the LSRCP goals for steelhead. The WDFW 

response specifies 4,656 hatchery produced steelhead adults per year and to maintain a substantial 

fishery in area streams. WDFW has separated the goal into subtotals for the watersheds 1,500 to 

the Grande Ronde, 875 to the Tucannon, 750 to the Touchet, 900 to the Walla Walla , and 631 to 

the Snake River. 

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate. 

14. The ISRP inquired whether the recreational fishery goal is being met, and asked what is the 

basis for stocking of brown trout? The WDFW response refers to the earlier question about 

monitoring of the recreational fishery (number 1). With respect to brown trout they accused the 

ISRP of not reading the full AOP plan, which shows that brown trout are no longer produced at 

any LFC facility. Production was discontinued following adoption of Washington’s wild 

salmonid policy. The table the ISRP referred to was for design capacities for each hatchery for 

each species under the original LSRCP plan in which brown trout were identified as a mitigation 

for lost angler opportunity. 

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate, though some note in the text would have 

been helpful in preventing the ISRP from having to infer this information from a comparison of a 

text that does not mention brown trout with a table that does. 

15. The ISRP noted that the response should describe the option of phasing out unsuccessful 

activities, even the hatchery program altogether, at least for steelhead. The WDFW response is 

that many activities have been terminated or substantially modified. For example, resident trout 

are no longer planted into any area streams. All resident trout are now stocked in area ponds and 

lakes. A summary of planting records is attached to the response. WDFW feels it cannot 

terminate the hatchery program without congressional approval. Furthermore, WDFW feels that 

the program has been successful in supporting the hatchery produced resident trout and steelhead 

fisheries. The spring and fall chinook programs are currently geared toward restoring naturally 

spawning populations using local stocks. It is their hope to supply harvest opportunities and meet 

mitigation goals for fall chinook in the near future. They recognize that it may not be possible to 

maintain the Tucannon spring chinook stock or ever meet its mitigation goal. 

They provide an analysis of potential effects of NMFS determination of jeopardy for LFH and 

Wallowa stock steelhead. There has been no guidance as to what level of hatchery production 

constitutes jeopardy. If relieved of the responsibility of mitigation under the LSRCP, other 

actions would have to be demonstrated to be successful and undertaken to compensate for the fish 

loss. They see no likelihood that other actions will be found in the near future that can substitute 

for the hatcheries. 

 

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate. 

16. The ISRP observed that the response should further describe the goal to establish hatchery 

brood stocks that are appropriate, local stocks. The WDFW response describes a process they are 

using to phase into local brood stock for steelhead in the Touchet River on a trial basis. They 

have concerns about “mining” the wild stock excessively; so have limited their initial target to 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

14 

50,000 smolts from the wild stock and the remaining 75-100,000 smolts required using the Lyons 

Ferry Hatchery stock. Unknown return rates and straying rates of smolts originating from the wild 

stock also led to caution at this stage. Evaluation of performance of this brood stock will occur 

over the next five years before a decision is made that might commit the entire program to wild 

stock. With respect to the lower Walla Walla River, they are uncertain how to proceed. The status 

and identification of the steelhead stock is being studied to determine the best way to change to 

use of the local stock. Extent of straying of this stock is being studied as well. They have a 

concern that there may be more than one wild stock present in the basin, and do not want to 

undertake a program that might lead to their blending. Therefore, the Lyons Ferry stock will 

continue to be used in the lower Walla Walla River, evaluating the returns from that program and 

the wild steelhead stock status in the Touchet River, the upper Walla Walla River and Mill Creek. 

ISRP Final Comment: The response was inadequate. See the ISRP general comment above on 

stock origin and transfer. 

17. The ISRP asked for a description of the level of agreement among the CTUIR, the state of 

Washington and the state of Oregon. The WDFW response observes that the CTUIR would 

prefer that WDFW terminate the releases into the Walla Walla River of Lyons Ferry Hatchery 

stock steelhead and switch to a local stock. The state of Oregon has made no comment. WDFW 

will continue to study the alternatives and effects of this hatchery stock. With respect to the 

Touchet River, CTUIR has agreed with the WDFW plan for short term stocking goals over the 

next 4-5 years. CTUIR would prefer that over the long term WDFW would supplement the wild 

steelhead population for harvest mitigation rather than phasing into a local stock, due to concerns 

about straying. WDFW believes that the Touchet River stock is healthier than the Tucannon, 

where WDFW has already undertaken supplementation due to the depressed nature of the spring 

chinook and steelhead stocks there. They regard supplementation as experimental. 

ISRP Final Comment: The response was adequate.

LSRCP Blue Mountain and Mountain Snake Proposals 

Clearwater 

Project ID: 200101 

LSRCP Dworshak NFH spring chinook program 

Sponsor: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Province: Mountain Snake 

Subbasin: Clearwater 

Target Species: Clearwater River Spring Chinook Salmon 

Short Description: Mitigate for lost spring chinook fisheries in the Clearwater River due to the 

construction of the four lower Snake River dams, also evaluate rearing, adult survival, fisheries 

contribution, and fish health for the production program. 

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments: 

A response is needed. While the program continues to fall short of it’s own goal, having 

provided 9135 spring chinook adults to the project area above Lower Granite Dam (LSRCP 

mitigation goal) only two years out of 18, it has provided some measure of success in providing 

Tribal fisheries in 12 of the last 15 years and sport fisheries in 6 of those 15 years. Smolt release 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

15 

goals were met in 11 of 20 years. The sponsors reported that for the first time, they met their goal 

of 9135 returning adults in 2000 and 2001. 

Nevertheless, the proposal and response left the ISRP with several unresolved uncertainties that 

need to be addressed during the upcoming funding cycle. For example, the project sponsors need 

to describe in more detail the database and data management system at the Idaho Fishery 

Resource Office (FRO). Is this system available to all LSRCP hatcheries, all Columbia Basin 

Hatcheries? What are the formulas and assumptions made in estimation of total adult returns? 

How are strays and locations of natural spawning estimated? How is the production of strays 

spawning naturally vs. wild fish spawning estimated? How are tribal, down-river, and in-river 

(above Lower Granite) harvest estimated and used in the reporting of LSRCP performance by 

facility? A close reading of the Dworshak proposal 200101 and the Clearwater proposal 200103 

suggest that sponsors are not reporting returning adult numbers using the same criteria. There 

needs to be a uniform standard for reporting and sharing data among facilities. 

Other comments: 

The technical and/or scientific background of the proposal (Section B) contained material 

primarily on the statutory background of the program, but included little technical information 

and nothing on the scientific issues involved. Notably lacking was discussion of the ecosystems 

into which the hatchery-produced fish are released, the suitability of the hatchery fish for survival 

in those ecosystems, and genetic and ecological consequences of imposing the hatchery fish on 

other organisms in those ecosystems, particularly wild conspecifics and other closely related wild 

fishes. 

The proposal revealed ongoing problems with bacterial kidney disease (BKD) in the hatchery. 

The disease was the key fish health issue in Clearwater spring chinook in the late 1980’s and 

early 1990’s. However, the proposal noted that application of certain practices has “effectively 

reduced the prevalence of BKD in Dworshak spring chinook,” and that the staff is “able to 

manage around the ever-present disease.” No data were presented on this pattern of disease 

prevalence or the efficacy of the new management actions. 

Project ID: 200103 

Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), Clearwater Fish Hatchery 

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Province: Mountain Snake 

Subbasin: Clearwater 

Target Species: Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, spring chinook salmon; Oncorhynchus mykiss, 

summer steelhead (steelhead) 

Short Description: As part of the LSRCP, Clearwater Fish Hatchery's objective is to rear 

juvenile salmon and steelhead to meet the mitigation goals of 12,000 adult chinook salmon and 

14,000 adult summer steelhead upstream of Lower Granite Dam.

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments: 

A response is needed. This is an inadequate proposal that provides little technical information 

needed for review. It provides little summary information on the purpose and past performance 

of the hatchery program. Rather, it focuses almost entirely on matters within the confines of the 

hatchery, which has operated since 1992. The proposal fails to adequately discuss how the 

hatchery products enter into management strategy and does not indicate what the results have 

been in terms of fish populations and fisheries. Material in the section on objectives, tasks and 

methods is organized in those terms, and except for great detail on performance of techniques, are 

not presented. Qualifications of the project personnel are not shown. 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

16 

This hatchery appears to be a failed project if the data shown in Appendix 1are taken as 

presented. Project sponsors need to clarify the data presented in Appendix 1. Are the adults 

trapped on the line associated with 1988 release, the return of the adults and jacks from the 1988 

release? What part of the return came from the smolt release and what part from the pre-smolt 

release? Do the returns include fish captured in the fisheries? Are adults in the “trapped” 

column, marked fish from CFH releases? 

The goal for this project is to return 12000 chinook and 14000 steelhead adults, and to provide 

compensation for lost resident spawning habitat. Releases of chinook salmon have been made 

since 1988 (Appendix 1) and in recent years have approached or exceeded 2 million producing a 

maximum return of 3,978 in 2001, but only 344 adults in 1999. Even in the best chinook year in 

recorded history, the return was far short of the project goal for chinook. The steelhead program 

is not productive. Release of steelhead smolts since 1993 in recent years has approximated 3⁄4 

million, but returns have been less that 25 adults in each of the last four return years. It is time to 

reconsider whether to continue this project or to divert the funds to other strategies for meeting 

the mitigation goals. 

Stock transfers have been discouraged as a management tool, yet an inter-basin transfer of Rapid 

River fish is practiced in this program. Other than an available source of spawn to fill the 

hatchery capacity, how can this practice be justified? 

What component of the project is supplementation (and how is this defined) and what component 

is harvest production? Sponsors need to identify the effort to each, and briefly describe M&E. 

The project does not meet its own broodstock requirements. When eggs from only IHNVnegative fish are accepted from DNFH, doesn’t that amount to selective breeding, a practice that 

also has been discouraged in modern hatchery management methods? 

Project ID: 200112 

Lyons Ferry Complex (Lyons Ferry and Tucannon Hatchery) Operations and Maintenance 

Sponsor: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Province: Mountain Snake 

Subbasin: Clearwater 

Target Species: Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, fall chinook; Oncorhynchus mykiss (Kamploop) 

rainbow trout 

Short Description: Restore Snake River Fall Chinook fisheries and populations through release 

of sub-yearling and yearling smolts produced at the Lyons Ferry Complex. Provide a trout 

fisheries through release of juvenile rainbow trout produced at the Lyons Ferry Complex 

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments: 

A response is needed. The proposal is more logically organized and is more thorough in terms of 

stating results, i.e., the project history section contains results than proposal 200103 and many 

other LSRCP proposals; however, it still suffers from extensive repetition of text from other 

LSRCP proposals. Many of the review comments from those proposals and the programmatic 

comments at the beginning of the LSRCP review section are pertinent to this proposal as well. 

More attention needs to be paid to reporting of past results, providing biological justification and 

ecological context for the projects proposed actions, and to the reporting and sharing of data. 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

17 

Salmon River 

Project ID: 200102 

Production of Summer Steelhead at Hagerman National Fish Hatchery, Lower Snake River 

Compensation Plan 

Sponsor: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Office 

Province: Mountain Snake 

Subbasin: Salmon 

Target Species: Summer Steelhead 

Short Description: Mitigate for lost steelhead fisheries in the Salmon River due to the 

construction of the four Lower Snake River dams. Also evaluate rearing and fish health for the 

production program. 

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments: 

A response is needed. The sponsors did not provide information to show the success or failure of 

the program. The proposal should include enough data to show its success or failure. Instead, the 

project sponsors refer reviewers to IDFG reports. While it is appropriate to reference critical 

reports, their results need to be summarized and included in the proposal. 

The stated goal of the program is to release 1,360,000 smolts to return 13,600 adult steelhead to 

the basin upstream from Lower Granite Dam. The project history contains data indicating that 

the goal for steelhead smolt release was met in 12 of the 18 years since 1984. However, no 

results on the more important goal of the adult return are presented. The M&E objective 1, task 

2 mentions collection of data on adult contribution to fisheries, but does not seem to consider also 

total adult return. How many adult steelhead does the program return to that area? The Brood 

Year Reports should also include estimates of numbers and locations of strays that spawn 

naturally. 

Portions of the proposal seemed confusing to reviewers. The program exists as a mitigation 

program, but R&D projects are part of the request and history. Initiation of projects mentioned 

such as the heritability of spawn time, and factors influencing precocity have been subjects of 

research programs in other locations (ODFW, for example). Were results of this research 

considered before these projects were initiated? Why was it necessary to repeat much of this 

work? 

 

Hatcheries should not be funded to develop their own databases, but rather, all LSRCP hatcheries 

need to provide evidence in their proposals that monitoring data are stored in an appropriate 

consistent database and are available through a distributed system via the Internet. The data and 

evaluation should be consistent with the Dworshak use of the Idaho FRO system (see Task 3.c in 

Proposal 200101) and any database in use by the Oregon Evaluation Studies (#200109). Results 

must be described in the proposal even if the data are collected and analyzed by a different 

project. 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

18 

Project ID: 200104 

Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), Magic Valley Fish Hatchery 

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Province: Mountain Snake 

Subbasin: Salmon 

Target Species: Oncorhynchus mykiss, summer steelhead 

Short Description: As part of the LSRCP, Magic Valley Fish Hatchery's objective is to rear 

juvenile summer steelhead (steelhead) to meet the mitigation goal of 11,660 adult steelhead 

upstream of Lower Granite Dam. 

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments: 

A response is needed. Inadequate proposal. Many of the comments on Project 200103 pertain 

also to this one. The proposal focuses mainly on matters within the hatchery. It has apparently 

operated more or less in present form since the mid 1980s. The proposal should include more 

discussion on how the hatchery products enter into management strategy. It fails to indicate what 

the results have been in terms of fish populations and fisheries. 

The abstract fails to give enough overview. It states neither the specific problems the hatchery is 

intended to remedy nor the results in trying to do so. The abstract indicates that the hatchery’s 

LSRP mitigation goal an adult return of 11,660 steelhead upstream of Lower Granite Dam. To 

what extent has this goal been met? 

The project history should answer that question but does not. It merely refers to two reports, and 

these were not provided to the reviewers. There is an appendix table containing numbers of 

smolts released, but the proposal contains no discussion of its meaning. The hatchery production 

goals (smolts to be produced) are not stated, so it cannot even be seen whether in-hatchery goals 

are being met. 

The technical and/or scientific background in Section B contains inadequate information on the 

scientific issues involved. Notably lacking is discussion of the ecosystems into which the 

hatchery-produced fish will be released, the suitability of the hatchery fish for survival in those 

ecosystems, and genetic and ecological consequences of imposing the hatchery fish on other 

organisms in those ecosystems, particularly wild conspecifics and other closely related wild 

fishes. One aspect of this is mentioned, namely, that “Releases for selective fishery utilization are 

purposely segregated from key natural steelhead spawning and rearing areas,” and this could be 

expanded upon by stating reasons, etc. 

Material in the section on objectives, tasks and methods is organized in those terms, and except 

for great detail on performance of techniques, are not presented. Qualifications of the project 

personnel are not shown. 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

19 

Project ID: 200105 

Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), McCall Fish Hatchery 

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Province: Mountain Snake 

Subbasin: Salmon 

Target Species: Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, summer chinook salmon 

Short Description: As part of the LSRCP, McCall Fish Hatchery's objective is to rear juvenile 

summer chinook salmon to meet the mitigation goal of 8,000 adult salmon upstream of Lower 

Granite Dam. 

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments: 

A response is needed. Do not provide funds for unspecified research. Many of the comments on 

Project 200103 pertain also to this one. The project continuation proposal reports “The LSRCP 

adult goal of 8000 adults upstream of Lower Granite Dam has rarely been achieved.” The data 

included show the goal can be attained with the quality of smolts produced given satisfactory 

conditions in the migration route and ocean. 

Proposed objective 5 (page 4) is to “Implement research programs at the hatchery to improve 

adult returns.” There is no proposal(s) describing this research, or the need for additional 

research. 

The technical and/or scientific background in Section B contains material primarily on statutory 

background of the program. It contains inadequate information on the scientific issues involved. 

Notably lacking is discussion of the ecosystems into which the hatchery-produced fish will be 

released, the suitability of the hatchery fish for survival in those ecosystems, and genetic and 

ecological consequences of imposing the hatchery fish on other organisms in those ecosystems, 

particularly wild conspecifics and other closely related wild fishes. 

The adult mitigation goal is “8,000 adult summer chinook salmon upstream of Lower Granite 

Dam,” and the direct hatchery production goal is to rear “up to 1,000,000 summer chinook smolts 

for release into the upper South Fork Salmon River” (italics added). The proposal gives no 

indication of the extent to which the adult return goal is being met. The production figure of “up 

to” a million chinook smolts is a pliable goal statement; literally, it says the program will try to 

produce anything between zero and a million. 

There is an appendix table containing numbers of smolts released, but the proposal contains no 

discussion of its meaning. If the hatchery production goal is actually 1,000,000 smolts stated, then 

this has been met in only 7 of the hatchery’s 20 years of operation. Smolt production exceeded 

900,000 in only 11 years. 

The project history merely refers to two reports, and these were not provided to the reviewers. 

The section on objectives lists objectives but does not list or explain tasks and methods. 

Qualifications of the project personnel are not shown. 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

20 

Project ID: 200106 

Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP), Sawtooth Fish Hatchery 

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Province: Mountain Snake 

Subbasin: Salmon 

Target Species: Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, spring chinook; Oncorhynchus mykiss, summer 

steelhead 

Short Description: As part of the LSRCP, Sawtooth Fish Hatchery's objective is to rear juvenile 

spring chinook salmon to meet the mitigation goal of 19,000 adult salmon upstream of Lower 

Granite Dam, and to provide summer steelhead eggs to other LSRCP hatcheries. 

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments: 

A response is needed. Do not provide funds for unspecified research. Many of the comments on 

Project 200103 pertain also to this one. 

The project goal of 19,000 adult spring chinook salmon upstream of Lower Granite Dam has 

never been achieved; hatchery returns have never been even 2000 fish. The part of the overall 

LSCRP goal for production of steelhead adults from Sawtooth Hatchery was not specified in the 

proposal. Project results were provided in Appendix 1, but the presentation is not clear. The 

presentation should make clear the release and returns for each brood, by age class and by year. It 

appears the adult return is the count at the Sawtooth and East Fork racks. Are data available to 

estimate how many of each species was harvested? As it stands, the spring chinook salmon goal 

(19,000) remains far in excess of any return, even the 2001 return. Numerical goals, and release 

and return data (including any harvest data) need to be presented in enough detail (more than is 

presented in Appendix 1) to answer the previous questions and to permit assessment of how well 

the program is or is not meeting its goals. 

Proposed objective 5 (page 4) is to “Implement research programs at the hatchery to improve 

salmon and steelhead returns to the hatchery.” There is no proposal(s) describing this research, or 

to show a need for additional research. 

Project ID: 200119 

LSRCP Fish Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation - Idaho 

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Province: Mountain Snake 

Subbasin: Salmon 

Target Species: spring/summer chinook salmon, summer steelhead 

Short Description: Monitor and evaluate Idaho's Lower Snake River Compensation Plan 

hatchery program. 

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments: 

A response is needed. Do not provide funds for unspecified research. Many of the comments on 

Project 200103 pertain also to this one. 

The technical and/or scientific background in Section B contains material primarily on statutory 

background of the program. It contains inadequate information on the scientific issues involved. 

Notably lacking is discussion of the ecosystems into which the hatchery-produced fish will be 

released, the suitability of the hatchery fish for survival in those ecosystems, and genetic and 

ecological consequences of imposing the hatchery fish on other organisms in those ecosystems, 

particularly wild conspecifics and other closely related wild fishes. 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

21 

The project history lists past activities. It should also summarize the results of those activities 

regarding the fishes (and fishing) involved. The material on objectives and tasks is well done but 

could be more specific with regard to methods. 

Project ID: 200108 

Nez Perce Tribe Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Hatchery Evaluation 

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe 

Province: Mountain Snake 

Subbasin: Salmon 

Target Species: chinook salmon, steelhead 

Short Description: Quantifies natural and hatchery adult salmon relative abundance, age and sex 

composition and dispersion of hatchery salmon in natural production areas, genetic profile within 

the SFSR metapopulation, and gene conservation (cryopreservation). 

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments: 

A response is needed. Sponsors did a reasonable job at putting this large, complex, and important 

M&E task to paper – well written, with thorough reference list (mainly grey literature). As large 

as the proposal is, it needs more detail on present results and trends. Insights on evolutionary 

implications are included in this proposal far more than in most others. The section on objectives, 

tasks, and methods seems thorough, and limitations seem to be properly recognized. Their task 

should also include publication – begin with entering the key questions (testable hypotheses) and 

findings into the proposal. 

Assurance should be given that monitoring of natural production is consistent with future plans of 

project No. 199107300, “Idaho Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation” in the Mt. Snake 

Province. 

The background information provided in the proposal is telling in that it comes close to 

suggesting that extinction will result despite numerous gallant efforts, including supplementation. 

It is subtly suggested that freshwater habitat may be as productive as possible. Thus, either 

harvest or other sources of mortality (dams?) must be addressed. The region will continue to 

ponder these policy decisions, but meanwhile must support projects such as this, if they assist 

evaluation and monitoring. 

Objectives of the proposal are to coordinate and participate in evaluation activities (conducted by 

others?), conduct spawning ground surveys, and cryopreservation. On the latter, it is difficult to 

imagine how this increases effective population size effectively, since it preserves only the male 

component. Thus, future population size will be limited by the availability of female spawners. 

On coordination, the poor quality of hatchery proposals herein, compared to this submission, 

suggests that there is a need for more oversight and evaluation of other related projects. This area 

should receive the greatest emphasis within the proposal. 

On page 3, they state that the project is intended to “monitor post-release aspects of LSRCP 

hatchery production performance, monitor natural production status and performance, evaluate 

interactions of hatchery and natural juveniles, promote genetic conservation, and to contribute to 

the co-management of the LSRCP program.” What are the specific objectives for these 

performance objectives, how is the sampling program designed to detect differences among 

groups, and what are the end-points? What interactions between hatchery and natural fish are 

being investigated, how are they being evaluated, and what can you conclude? Evaluation of the 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

22 

relative production from hatchery fish vs. wild fish that are spawning naturally together in the 

wild should also be an important focus of investigation of the study. What are the specific, 

quantitative objectives of the genetic conservation component and how will you know when you 

get there? 

The Mt. Snake Project No. 198335003, “Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Monitoring And Evaluation” 

for $1,884,430 is not mentioned in the proposal. We assume there are other projects in the Blue 

Mt. Province. The relationship of these projects should be explained and justified. Also, note 

199703000 Chinook Salmon Adult Abundance 

Monitoring 

Nez Perce 

Tribe/Pacific 

Northwest National 

Laboratory 

Salmon $1,033,000 

199703800 Preserve Salmonid Gametes and 

Establish a Regional Salmonid 

Germplasm Repository 

Nez Perce Tribe Salmon $1,279,000 

This is not all of the projects. For the money being given by the Council and LSRCP, a better 

accounting should be given? This proposal is for $169,928, a relatively modest request.

Imnaha 

Project ID: 200107 

Nez Perce Tribe Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Hatchery Evaluation 

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe 

Province: Blue Mountain 

Subbasin: Imnaha 

Target Species: Chinook salmon, steelhead, natural and hatchery 

Short Description: Determine post-release survival of hatchery chinook salmon smolts, smolt 

survival, emigration timing and travel time at Snake River dams, SAR of wild/natural chinook; 

determine adult steelhead spawner abundance; preserve genetic diversity (cryopreserve). 

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments: 

A response is needed. This is a well-prepared proposal that complements many of the Blue 

Mountain Province proposals reviewed. The proposal presents some data and graphics from past 

monitoring efforts, provides evidence of a good reporting record, and provides good rationale for 

the need for quantitative assessments, maintenance of life history diversity and the integration of 

supplementation programs that mimic this diversity. Further, there are comments regarding 

incorporating data into Regional data systems but it is not completely clear how much of this data 

is achieved. Reviewers have several minor comments and one major programmatic concern. 

Minor issues: 

1. Many of these assessments use PIT tags and large numbers of them, but is there a sampling 

design to justify these tag numbers and, if so, what is the confidence level that is desired? 

Are there specific hypotheses being tested with this tagging or is this just aimed at some level 

of precision in the estimator? 

2. The proposal provides SAR’s for the 1996 brood spring and fall chinook, which showed 

promising levels of return. However, there are no measures of variability about these 

estimates. What is the variability and how has it been estimated? This is an important issue 

for sampling designs and is a concern regarding the numbers of tags required to measure the 

SAR for steelhead given their multiple ages at emigration. 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

23 

3. This is the first proposal to comment on how trap efficiency is measured for the Imnaha smolt 

trapping but there is no indication of the variability in these daily estimates and how it 

compares with the alternative model suggested. 

4. The proposal refers to snorkel estimation of fish density along transects. Verification of such 

an estimation procedure seems necessary but there is no reference to this. 

Project ID: 200111 

Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife Compensation Plan Hatcheries O&M 

Sponsor: Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife 

Province: Blue Mountain 

Subbasin: Imnaha 

Target Species: Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (spring chinook) 

Short Description: The goal of the LSRCP is to mitigate and compensate for fish resource losses 

caused by construction and operation of the four lower Snake River dams and navigation lock 

projects (FWS 2000). 

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments: 

Fundable. The proposal is well organized and integrated with other associated projects but this 

proposal only covers the operating expenses for facilities (operated by ODFW) associated with 

conventional production of spring chinook and steelhead in the Imnaha basin. The proposal 

presents a purely fish hatchery approach: so-called compensation rather than dealing with 

causative problems. There is no deviation from past cost estimates for these activities. The short 

description in Section 1 is inaccurate and should be corrected to be more descriptive of this actual 

proposal. 

Grande Ronde 

Project ID: 200109 

Lower Snake River Compensation Plan--Oregon Evaluation Studies 

Sponsor: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Province: Blue Mountain 

Subbasin: Grande Ronde 

Target Species: Chinook Salmon and Summer Steelhead 

Short Description: This project provides information to assess the success of Oregon's LSRCP 

program in meeting management objectives. Studies focus on hatchery effectiveness, life history, 

supplementation, population status, and fisheries restoration. 

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments: 

A response is required. This is an important proposal that is integrated with several other projects 

in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha basins. The proposal is informative, provides a good historical 

overview of the stocks and programs, and has a good record of publications and 

accomplishments. However, given its importance there are several issues that need to be 

clarified. 

1) Minam stock is identified as a control or wild stock but several comments made during the 

site visit question its suitability due to past habitat and stock impacts. What evidence is there 

that this is an adequate control or simply a system without hatchery releases? 

2) page 6 of Section 9 states “We are continuing our efforts to monitor straying in to the Minam 

and Wenaha Rivers and determine annual escapement and broodyear specific productivity for 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

24 

all major spawning populations in the basin.” ... paragraph refers to Grande Ronde basin 

chinook salmon. There are numerous questions generated by this statement: how are 

populations defined, how is productivity measured, how accurately can escapements be 

measured by age, sex, and population, etc.? These concerns are not subsequently addressed 

in the text. 

3) page 16, Section 9 states “We have developed approaches that allow for accurate estimates of 

natural spawning escapements.” What comparisons have been made to verify accuracy and 

what methods are used? 

4) In the methods section, the investigators use LV clips that are known to reduce the survival of 

these animals. Why is this clip needed and what alternative were investigated? 

5) Major concern ... a major aspect of this proposal is the annual estimation of spawning 

escapements for spring chinook. The basis for these surveys needs to be more fully described 

including what quantitative methods (to derive accurate values noted above in point 3). In 

the absence of a consistent and quantitative method, reviewers do not see a basis for the 

statement made on page 16. Reviewers understanding of the escapement surveys is that a 

three-tiered survey is conducted: one is the historical index areas, second is the extensive 

surveys conducted simultaneously with the historical index; and third is the two supplemental 

surveys conducted after the previous two. But what method is actually used to determine the 

escapement ... is it peak count during the surveys or a ‘stream-life’-type calculation that uses 

the multiple surveys? Reviewers have serious concerns about the accuracy of any method 

that assumes they can identify the peak spawning time and only enumerate at that time. 

6) In sub-objective 7.3, how are the biosamples collected in order to partition sexes and/or 

production to a brood year. Carcasses are seldom a good random sampling of the adult return 

in other chinook populations, what is the evidence that this is adequate in these populations. 

7) Objective 8 seems to be identical to proposal 27024, is this true and if so, why? 

8) Objective 10 refers to using Rapid River stock for re-introduction ... is this still correct and, 

if so, why is this necessary if captive brood fish are available. The main spring chinook brood 

stocks in the Grande Ronde have been changed to be endemic, why should a different stock 

be allowed in Lookingglass Creek? 

9) The numbering of objectives is not consistent with the numbering in the budget summary? 

This should be corrected to facilitate understanding of associated costs. 

There are so many interdependencies between proposals in these basins, these agencies might be 

advised to establish critical linkages and prioritize these in case funds are not sufficient. A matrix 

presentation of proposals and keys information ties would greatly facilitate understanding of these 

linkages. 

We recommend not funding the hatchery monitoring component until evidence is given that 

monitoring data are stored in an appropriate consistent database for all LSRCP hatcheries and are 

available through a distributed system via the Internet. The data and evaluation should be 

consistent with the Dworshak use of the Idaho FRO system (see Task 3.c in Proposal 200101). 

Results must be given in the proposal even if analyzed by a different project. Given the amount of 

data and metadata collected, there must be a database in use by this project, but we did not see a 

description of the database or associated costs. 

Similarly, do not fund the natural production component unless there are plans to begin 

implementing the “Oregon Plan.” Traditional and new sites selected under the Oregon Plan 

should both be surveyed for a few years. This is a large complex M&E program for Oregon 

LSRCP hatcheries and natural production. It is not clear that the monitoring for natural 

production is being conducted according to the Oregon Plan. We anticipate that it is not. If we 

are correct, the proponents should begin to move from the use of index sites and the associated 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

25 

extended sites to a probabilistic selection of monitoring sites that is consistent with the Oregon 

DF&W and DEA proposals in the Columbia Plateau for the Deschutes, John Day, Walla Walla 

and Umatilla (see the ISRP reviews and responses in the Columbia Plateau Province). The 

Oregon LSRCP M&E program should begin working with the other Provinces to develop 

common probabilistic sampling plans, common data collection protocols and common databases. 

Project ID: 200110 

Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife Compensation Plan 

Sponsor: Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife 

Province: Blue Mountain 

Subbasin: Grande Ronde 

Target Species: Oncorhynchus mykiss (summer steelhead), Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (spring 

chinook) 

Short Description: The goal of the LSRCP is to mitigate and compensate for fish resource losses 

caused by construction and operation of the four lower Snake River dams and navigation lock 

projects (FWS 2000). 

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments: 

Fundable. The proposal is well organized and integrated with other associated projects but this 

proposal only covers the operating expenses for facilities (operated by ODFW) associated with 

conventional production of spring chinook and steelhead in the Imnaha basin. The proposal 

presents a purely fish hatchery approach: so-called compensation rather than dealing with 

causative problems. There is no deviation from past cost estimates for these activities. The short 

description in Section 1 is inaccurate and should be corrected to be more descriptive of this actual 

proposal. 

Since this proposal only addresses facility operating expenses, it may not be appropriate to 

comment on data and data management. However, there is a general need for data to be stored in 

an appropriate consistent database for all LSRCP hatcheries and are available through a 

distributed system via the Internet. Data available from these programs must be made available 

for assessments and progress towards project goals. The data and evaluation should be consistent 

with the Dworshak use of the Idaho FRO system (see Task 3.c in Proposal 200101) and any 

database in use by the Oregon Evaluation Studies (#200109). Results must be given in the 

proposal even if collected and analyzed by a different project. In particular, results for returning 

adults, straying rates, and reproduction of strays that spawn naturally should be given. 

Project ID: 200113 

Lyons Ferry Complex (Lyons Ferry and Tucannon Hatchery) Operations and Maintenance 

Sponsor: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Province: Blue Mountain 

Subbasin: Grande Ronde 

Target Species: Oncorhynchus mykiss, summer steelhead 

Short Description: Restore steelhead fisheries and populations through release of yearling 

smolts produced at Lyons Ferry Hatchery 

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments: 

See ISRP review of other Grande Ronde LSRCP projects and comments in Columbia Plateau 

section above for the Lyons Ferry projects. 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

26 

Project ID: 200117 

LSRCP Grande Ronde River Summer Steelhead and Fall Chinook Production and Evaluation 

Program 

Sponsor: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Province: Blue Mountain 

Subbasin: Grande Ronde 

Target Species: Summer steelhead and fall chinook salmon (future) 

Short Description: Monitor releases of hatchery steelhead mitigation fish in the Grande Ronde. 

Recommend hatchery related actions, which may aid recovery of ESA listed populations. 

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments: 

A response is required. The budget is apparently for one FTE at $42,800K to participate in a 

broad LSRCP M&E program, but it is unclear how this project is integrated with other evaluation 

projects. 

 

This proposal has been largely extracted from the proposal for Projects 200118, 200112, 200114, 

200115 (or the other way around). In general, the way the proposal is written detracts from the 

project clarity. It is far too long for the content involved (needless words, among other problems), 

and is full of organizational lapses (though most headings remain). Trying to find why and how 

the project is being done and what its results are takes far more effort than it should. Therefore, 

many comments below deal with the proposal rather than the project itself. It was helpful to have 

in-hatchery (production) details relegated to an appendix. 

Section b: Technical and/or scientific background shows disregard for this subject area. The 

material focuses on statutory underpinnings and program process, gives little hint of technical 

matters, and has nothing whatsoever about scientific basis for the program. The message this 

section conveys is that the sponsors view the program as neither needing scientific justification 

nor having science behind what is being done. Hunting through the rest of the proposal reveals 

that this does not adequately characterize the sponsors’ view, but the writers got the proposal off 

to a poor start by misconstruing Section b. Furthermore, no primary scientific literature is 

referenced anywhere in the proposal. Only gray literature was used, and one of those sources 

shown in the text, Martin (2000), does not appear among the proposal’s listed references. 

The proposal fails to refer to the significant body of published research findings on steelhead 

residualization and the effects of it. It does not even refer to WDFW’s own long-standing and 

well-known research on relative reproductive performance of wild and hatchery steelhead and the 

resulting threat to natural productivity, e.g., the papers of Chilcote, Leider, and others from the 

Kalama River. It also ignores such pertinent papers as Reisenbichler and McIntyre (1977) and 

Reisenbichler et al. (1992). Below are examples of references that project personnel should 

consult for possible inclusion (and as starting points for finding others) with thorough discussion 

in a revised proposal: 

Chilcote, M. W., S. A. Leider, and J. J. Loch. 1986. Differential reproductive success of hatchery 

and wild summer-run steelhead under natural conditions. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 115:726-735. 

Reisenbichler, R. R. 1997. Genetic factors contributing to declines of anadromous salmonids in 

the Pacific Northwest. Pages 223-244 in D. J. Stouder, P. A. Bisson, and R. J. Naiman, eds. 

Pacific salmon and their ecosystems: status and future options. Chapman & Hall, New York. 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

27 

Reisenbichler, R. R., and J. D. McIntyre. 1977. Genetic differences in growth and survival of 

juvenile hatchery and wild steelhead trout, Salmo gairdneri. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 34:123-

128. 

Reisenbichler, R. R., J. D. McIntyre, M. F. Solazzi, and S. W. Ladino. 1992. Genetic variation in 

steelhead of Oregon and northern California. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 121:158-169. 

Reisenbichler, R. R., and S. R. Phelps. 1989. Genetic variation in steelhead (Salmo gairdneri) 

from the north coast of Washington. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 46:66-73. 

Section c: Rationale and significance to Regional Programs contains a welter of material 

concerning rationale: various forms of statement on goals, objectives, plans, identified needs, and 

visions—by at least eight agencies and tribes. This could have been boiled down to something 

more coherent but is generally good stuff. It gives helpful context within which to consider the 

target fishes, fall chinook salmon and summer steelhead, and the management for them. (The 

project’s actual, narrow, technical concept and operation, or aspects of these, may not fit in with 

some of the stated, ecologically based visions and goals). Then, for each of the two fishes, there is 

a summary of past hatchery program intents, efforts, and results, as well as future “possibility.” 

Embedded in Section c are indications of some technical aspects and underlying science that 

could have been covered (with much else) in Section b. Most of the material on past effort and 

results belongs in Section e, Project history. (If writers do not follow the organization stipulated 

for proposals, it becomes confusing and inefficient for reviewers to ferret out what they are trying 

to say.) 

The following quotation brings up useful questions: “The existence of LSRCP hatchery 

mitigation within the Grande Ronde basin . . . continues to raise questions: what are the effects on 

listed species of continuing the hatchery steelhead program, should new broodstocks be 

developed for the program to reduce the potential for negative impacts of hatchery production and 

serve as a more appropriate source of supplementation fish, and are wild populations within the 

basin healthy enough to be used for broodstock development without serious damage? Answers 

to these questions must be obtained and integrated into existing management documents if 

managers are to make informed decisions that benefit natural populations.” The proposal should 

indicate the progress made toward getting the answers and what the results have been so far. 

Section e: Project history merely lists various activities, some oddly presented as task 

statements. It fails to show here what the results were, but, as said, some were shown in a 

previous section. Except for one unquantified statement, the “Past Accomplishments” are 

expressed not as what was accomplished, but as activities performed; mere activities are not 

meaningful accomplishments. The one statement of a result was that the project “provides an 

excellent steelhead sport fishery in the lower Grande Ronde River which has exceeded the 

original LSRCP mitigation goals.” It was previously stated that LSRCP’s “specific mitigation 

goals include ‘in-place’ and ‘in-kind’ replacement of adult salmon and steelhead,” and that the 

project is intended to “rear and release juvenile fish to compensate for . . . [among other things,] . 

. . 4,656 Snake River summer steelhead. . .” An objective is later stated of meeting an “LSRCP 

goal to return an average of 1,250 adult hatchery steelhead to the Lower Grande Ronde River 

annually for harvest.” It is not clear how the figure of 4,656 was reduced to 1,250. The estimated 

sport fishery harvests of the hatchery’s fish were estimated to range from 1,291 to 3,520 during 

the nine angling seasons from 1991-1992 to 1999-2000. These estimated harvests exceed the 

LSRCP harvest goal of 1,250 but fall short of the 4,656 that are supposed to be compensated for. 

What is the explanation to this? 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

28 

Section f: Objectives, tasks and methods. This is the good part. There are better indications of 

what the project is about. The opening paragraph indicates that the objectives and tasks that apply 

to this project were pulled from an overall document on the LSRCP program. The narrative 

material may represent direct input by project personnel. The scheme looks adequate. The project 

history section should, by summarizing results, show the extent to which the work is being done 

and is effective. 

Most of these comments likely pertain to the proposals that material has been extracted from, but 

this proposal must be substantially clarified. 

Project ID: 200118 

Evaluation of salmonids released in the Snake River under the LSRCP Program 

Sponsor: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Province: Blue Mountain 

Subbasin: Snake Hells Canyon 

Target Species: Fall chinook salmon 

Summer steelhead 

Short Description: Evaluate fall chinook production and releases into the Snake River basin 

above Lower Granite Dam, and document harvest / return of hatchery reared steelhead produced 

as part of the LSRCP program. 

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments: 

A response is required. This project is part of a set of projects 200118, 200112, 200114, and 

200115: Production and evaluation of salmonids released in the Snake River of Washington 

under the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) Program. The proposal is mostly for 

personal costs for participation in evaluation studies and for minor components of the PIT and 

DNA sampling costs (details were not provided for a capital request of $25K). This proposal is 

integrated with a larger evaluation proposal submitted by the Nez Perce (project #199801004). 

These proposals constitute the core assessment of this production. 

The proposal lists objectives and tasks in section 9f but the methods are very limited in 

description and require clarification. 

As with many of other LSRCP proposals, we recommend not funding the hatchery monitoring 

component until evidence is given that monitoring data are stored in an appropriate consistent 

database for all LSRCP hatcheries and are available through a distributed system via the Internet. 

The data and evaluation should be consistent with the Dworshak use of the Idaho FRO system 

(see Task 3.c in Proposal 200101). Results must be given in the proposal even if analyzed by a 

different project. Given the amount of data and metadata collected, there must be a database in 

use by this project, but we did not see a description of the database or associated costs. 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

29 

Project ID: 200120 

Reintroduction evaluation of spring chinook salmon and the study of the early life history of 

summer steelhead in Lookingglass Creek 

Sponsor: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 

Province: Blue Mountain 

Subbasin: Grande Ronde 

Target Species: Spring Chinook Salmon, Summer Steelhead 

Short Description: Monitor and evaluate survival and life history characteristics of spring 

chinook salmon and O. mykiss in Lookingglass Creek 

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments: 

Do not fund, response required. While this is quite a comprehensive proposal and can be 

rationalized against Regional programs, reviewers question the current necessity for this detailed 

program. Three issues suggest the need to review this program: 

• improvements to the Lookingglass Hatchery water supply have not been agreed upon or 

costs approved at this time; 

• uncertainty about the wisdom of outplanting into the habitat without careful consideration 

of experiments that could be conducted in this unique environmental situation (this point 

is even referred to by the authors in point 2, page 4 of Section 9); and 

• whether there is simply the need to conduct such a detailed investigation for another 

production objective. 

The project should be reduced to reasonable scope, focusing on a single, clear purpose, and then 

be written up in a much more concise proposal. A suggestion may be for the proponents to 

proceed with a substantially reduced program until the hatchery up-grade is complete, and until a 

careful consideration of alternative uses of the habitat is complete. We recognize that this may 

lead to a temporary deferment of production or fishery objectives but the benefits of using such a 

controlled environment for critical research issues (such as about the efficacy of re-introduction 

methods) may out-weigh these shorter-term production goals. These options should be discussed 

amongst co-managers before this proposal proceeds further. 

Snake Hells Canyon 

Project ID: 200115 

Lyons Ferry Complex (Lyons Ferry and Tucannon Hatchery) Operations and Maintenance 

Sponsor: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Province: Blue Mountain 

Subbasin: Snake Hells Canyon 

Target Species: Oncorhynchus mykiss, summer steelhead 

Short Description: Restore fall chinook and resident trout fisheries and populations through 

release of yearling smolts produced at Lyons Ferry Hatchery 

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments: 

A response is required. This proposal is mostly material shared with projects #200117 and 

#200113 (or the other way around); so most comments on them could apply in part to this 

proposal also. This project’s potential responders are referred to those comments. However, this 

proposal seems to have some of its material more logically organized and is more thorough in 

terms of stating results, i.e., the project history section contains results. The proposal is largely 

for operating expenses associated with the Lyons Ferry complex hatcheries but also includes 

some funds for marking and evaluation. Project sponsors should respond to comments on any of 

these projects in one collated and integrated response. 
ISRP 2001-12B LSRCP Preliminary Review 

30 

Asotin 

Project ID: 200116 

Monitor and Evaluate Salmonid Production in the Asotin Creek Subbasin of Washington 

Sponsor: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Province: Blue Mountain 

Subbasin: Asotin 

Target Species: Summer steelhead and spring chinook salmon 

Short Description: Monitor the status of salmonid populations within the Asotin subbasin in the 

absence of hatchery supplementation. Recommend hatchery related actions, which may aid 

recovery of ESA listed populations. 

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments: 

Response required, but likely fundable. This is a relatively small ($30K/year) project to monitor 

wild steelhead and salmon production for comparison with hatchery-origin stream production 

elsewhere, and to help assess effects of habitat restoration. The tour in August indicated that 

steelhead have been the focus to date but chinook spawning was occurring in 2001. The tour also 

showed reviewers that this project is linked to a very active and apparently extremely successful 

habitat restoration program. This proposal provides an interesting history and many of the goals 

and objectives are supportable, but there are no methods presented or examination of the data 

quality. How do we know that quantitative repeatable surveys are conducted and how are data 

quality assessed? While the project seems worthy of continued support, more information is 

needed regarding sampling site location for the program used to estimate juvenile salmonid 

population size. The sole use of index sites is not appropriate (refer to programmatic M&E 

comments and need to incorporate randomly selected sites). 

The budget summary also generated some confusion. The FY2002 budget request is for $27,600 

... but then the cost sharing summary quotes the same value. Is this an error of accounting or is 

that actually a 1:1 cost sharing ratio? Further, given the tasks described, what are the funds 

actually requested for? The amount requested seems inadequate to do very much.