Council Document ISRP 99-4

Independent Scientific Review Panel

for the Northwest Power Planning Council

Response Review

of Fiscal Year 2000 Proposals

Charles C. Coutant

Daniel Goodman

Susan S. Hanna

Nancy Huntly

Dennis Lettenmaier

James Lichatowich

Lyman McDonald

Brian Riddell

William Smoker

Richard R. Whitney

Richard N. Williams
ISRP 99-4

October 29, 1999

Peer Review Group Participants in FY2000 Response Review

Richard Alldredge, Washington State University

Peter Bisson, ISRP member through FY1999 Review; United States Forest Service

Douglas Crowe, Wildlife Consultant, Wyoming

Peter Delaney, Department of Fisheries and Ocean, Vancouver, BC

Robert Gresswell, Northwest Biological Science Center, USGS

David Hankin, Humboldt State University

Jack McIntyre, Fisheries Consultant

David Philipp, Illinois Natural History Survey

Daniel Pletscher, University of Montana

Alan Springer, University of Alaska

Bruce Ward, University of British Columbia

Ray White, Trout Habitat Specialists, Consultant
ISRP FY2000 Response Review

i

Independent Scientific Review Panel FY2000 Response Review

Contents

SECTION I: Programmatic Comments.............................................................................. 1

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

Results of the Response Review......................................................................................... 2

Project-level Monitoring and Evaluation Still Problematic................................................ 2

Perceived ISRP Bias Against Hatchery Projects................................................................ 3

Wildlife M&E: Linkages Needed between HEPs and Target Species............................... 4

Justification for Proposal Actions....................................................................................... 5

Subcontractors and Proposal Review.................................................................................. 5

Resident Fish Substitutions................................................................................................. 6

Rolling Review Protocols and Review Criteria Being Developed ..................................... 6

Need for an Annual Review Process in FY2001 and beyond?........................................... 6

Literature Cited ................................................................................................................... 7

SECTION II: Tables of ISRP Recommendations............................................................... 8

Table 1. Proposals Sorted by Subbasin........................................................................... 8

Table 2. Proposals Sorted by ISRP Recommendation and Project ID ......................... 15

SECTION III: Recommendations and Comments on each FY2000 Proposal in the

Response Review.............................................................................................................. 22

Ocean and Estuary ............................................................................................................ 22

ProjectID: 9702600....................................................................................................... 22

ProjectID: 9801400....................................................................................................... 24

Smolt Monitoring.............................................................................................................. 26

ProjectID: 8740100....................................................................................................... 26

ProjectID: 8331900....................................................................................................... 26

PATH and PATH related.................................................................................................. 27

ProjectID: 9600600....................................................................................................... 27

ProjectID: 9600800....................................................................................................... 28

ProjectID: 9600801....................................................................................................... 28

ProjectID: 9601700....................................................................................................... 28

ProjectID: 9800100....................................................................................................... 28

ProjectID: 9303701....................................................................................................... 29

ProjectID: 9700200....................................................................................................... 29

Systemwide Predator and Competitor Research............................................................... 29

ProjectID: 9007800....................................................................................................... 29

ProjectID: 9702400....................................................................................................... 30

Systemwide Life History Studies...................................................................................... 30

ProjectID: 9102900....................................................................................................... 30

Pacific Lamprey Research Program.................................................................................. 31

ProjectID: 9402600....................................................................................................... 31

ProjectID: 20019........................................................................................................... 32

ProjectID: 20065........................................................................................................... 32

ProjectID: 20121........................................................................................................... 33

ProjectID: 20064........................................................................................................... 33
ISRP FY2000 Response Review

ii

Systemwide Coordination................................................................................................. 33

ProjectID: 9800800....................................................................................................... 33

Lower Mid-Columbia Mainstem and Multi-subbasin ...................................................... 34

ProjectID: 9900300....................................................................................................... 34

ProjectID: 9801900....................................................................................................... 35

Hood, Fifteenmile, and Deschutes.................................................................................... 36

ProjectID: 9802400....................................................................................................... 36

ProjectID: 9802800....................................................................................................... 37

John Day ........................................................................................................................... 37

ProjectID: 9801600....................................................................................................... 37

ProjectID: 9605300....................................................................................................... 39

ProjectID: 20131........................................................................................................... 39

ProjectID: 9801700....................................................................................................... 40

ProjectID: 9801800....................................................................................................... 40

Umatilla, Walla Walla, and Rock Creek........................................................................... 41

ProjectID: 8903500....................................................................................................... 41

ProjectID: 9000500....................................................................................................... 42

ProjectID: 8343500....................................................................................................... 43

ProjectID: 8805302....................................................................................................... 43

ProjectID: 20138........................................................................................................... 43

ProjectID: 8802200....................................................................................................... 44

ProjectID: 8343600....................................................................................................... 44

ProjectID: 8902700....................................................................................................... 44

ProjectID: 20139........................................................................................................... 45

ProjectID: 9000501....................................................................................................... 45

ProjectID: 8710001....................................................................................................... 46

ProjectID: 9901100....................................................................................................... 46

ProjectID: 20127........................................................................................................... 46

Yakima and Klickitat ........................................................................................................ 47

ProjectID: 8811525....................................................................................................... 47

ProjectID: 8812025....................................................................................................... 47

ProjectID: 9506325....................................................................................................... 48

ProjectID: 9506425....................................................................................................... 48

ProjectID: 9701325....................................................................................................... 48

ProjectID: 9901200....................................................................................................... 49

ProjectID: 9705100....................................................................................................... 49

ProjectID: 9803400....................................................................................................... 49

Upper Mid-Columbia........................................................................................................ 50

ProjectID: 9502800....................................................................................................... 50

ProjectID: 9604000....................................................................................................... 50

Upper Columbia Mainstem, Lake Roosevelt, Lake Pend Oreille and Coeur d'Alene...... 51

ProjectID: 8503800....................................................................................................... 51

ProjectID: 9001800....................................................................................................... 52

ProjectID: 9501100....................................................................................................... 53

ProjectID: 9800300....................................................................................................... 54

ProjectID: 9106100....................................................................................................... 54
ISRP FY2000 Response Review

iii

ProjectID: 9204800....................................................................................................... 55

ProjectID: 9506700....................................................................................................... 56

ProjectID: 9004400....................................................................................................... 56

ProjectID: 9500100....................................................................................................... 57

Upper Columbia Flathead and Kootenai........................................................................... 57

ProjectID: 9101901....................................................................................................... 57

ProjectID: 9101904....................................................................................................... 58

ProjectID: 8346700....................................................................................................... 58

ProjectID: 9401001....................................................................................................... 58

ProjectID: 9404900....................................................................................................... 59

ProjectID: 8806400....................................................................................................... 59

ProjectID: 8806500....................................................................................................... 60

Lower Snake Mainstem and Multi-subbasin .................................................................... 60

ProjectID: 9801003....................................................................................................... 60

ProjectID: 9700900....................................................................................................... 61

Idaho Supplementation Studies and Related Proposals.................................................... 61

ProjectID: 9005500....................................................................................................... 61

ProjectID: 9107300....................................................................................................... 62

Lower Snake Captive Broodstock Proposals.................................................................... 62

ProjectID: 9703800....................................................................................................... 62

Clearwater......................................................................................................................... 64

ProjectID: 20157........................................................................................................... 64

ProjectID: 8335000....................................................................................................... 65

ProjectID: 8335003....................................................................................................... 68

ProjectID: 9501300....................................................................................................... 68

ProjectID: 9608600....................................................................................................... 69

ProjectID: 9706000....................................................................................................... 70

ProjectID: 9901400....................................................................................................... 70

ProjectID: 9901500....................................................................................................... 71

ProjectID: 9303501....................................................................................................... 71

ProjectID: 20084........................................................................................................... 72

ProjectID: 20086........................................................................................................... 72

ProjectID: 20087........................................................................................................... 72

ProjectID: 9607708....................................................................................................... 73

ProjectID: 9607709....................................................................................................... 74

ProjectID: 9607711....................................................................................................... 74

ProjectID: 9901600....................................................................................................... 74

ProjectID: 9901700....................................................................................................... 75

ProjectID: 8740700....................................................................................................... 75

ProjectID: 9501600....................................................................................................... 76

Salmon River Subbasin..................................................................................................... 76

ProjectID: 9700100....................................................................................................... 76

ProjectID: 9705700....................................................................................................... 77

ProjectID: 9604300....................................................................................................... 80

ProjectID: 9107100....................................................................................................... 81

ProjectID: 9901900....................................................................................................... 81
ISRP FY2000 Response Review

iv

ProjectID: 9600700....................................................................................................... 82

Grande Ronde and Imnaha................................................................................................ 82

ProjectID: 9800703....................................................................................................... 82

ProjectID: 8805301....................................................................................................... 83

ProjectID: 8805305....................................................................................................... 84

Upper Snake above Hell's Canyon, Malheur, Owyhee..................................................... 85

ProjectID: 20135........................................................................................................... 85

ProjectID: 9500600....................................................................................................... 86

ProjectID: 9106700....................................................................................................... 87

ProjectID: 9501500....................................................................................................... 88

Index by Project ID .................................................................................89
ISRP FY2000 Response Review

1

SECTION I: Programmatic Comments

Introduction

In late summer 1999, the Council asked the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP)

to review sponsor provided responses to the ISRP’s original review comments on

individual FY2000 proposals (ISRP 99-2, Volume II, 15 June 1999). This is a relatively

unprecedented request, as previous ISRP (and ISAB) reviews, reports, and

recommendations have not generally been opened for formal response by project

sponsors and subjected to a re-review by the ISRP. In the long run, too frequent use of

such an interactive review process might undermine the review role of independent

review groups like the ISRP. However, recognizing the importance of the transition

period from the annual review cycles of FY1998 through FY2000 to the new somewhat

uncharted terrain of the three-year province-level rolling reviews, the ISRP willingly

agreed to undertake this additional review step for resolution of funding status for

FY2000 proposals where the ISRP recommended “fund in part,” “delay funding” or “do

not fund.”

Sponsor responses were provided in a variety of formats. Responses for Columbia Fish

and Wildlife Authority members were provided in the CBFWA Draft Annual

Implementation Work Plan (DAIWP) of August 20, 1999. Anticipating additional

review by the ISRP, Council also solicited sponsor responses for proposals. Sponsors

were given the choice of using the CBFWA DAIWP response, revising and resubmitting

the CBFWA response, providing their own response directly to Council, or submitting a

response through the public comment process.

Responses were received for 100 proposals and distributed to the ISRP and Peer Review

Group (PRG) members in early October. ISRP and PRG members that had reviewed the

proposal originally reviewed the sponsor-provided response and determined whether the

response adequately addressed the ISRP’s concerns that led to the qualified or negative

recommendation. The ISRP’s review criteria are specified in the 1996 amendment to the

Northwest Power Act, which states that project recommendations shall be based on a

determination that projects:

1. are based on sound science principles;

2. benefit fish and wildlife;

3. have a clearly defined objective and outcome

4. with provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results, and

5. are consistent with the Council’s fish and wildlife program.

The ISRP met for three days to review and discuss the 100 proposal responses.

Responses were read carefully by at least three reviewers and presented to the larger

ISRP and PRG review group for discussion. Responses were discussed and a

determination reached whether or not the response had adequately addressed the ISRP’s

review comments and concerns (Table 1).
ISRP FY2000 Response Review

2

Results of the Response Review

After considering the sponsor’s responses, most proposals were found to satisfy the ISRP

comments and 75 out of 100 were recommended for funding (Table 2A). An additional

10 proposals were recommended for funding in part (Table 2B). For some proposals, the

response answered many, but not all of the ISRP’s concerns. For four of these proposals

where the review was generally positive, but a critical element was still judged to be

missing or deficient, the ISRP recommended delaying funding until that element was

corrected or provided (Table 2C). The responses of eleven proposals did not adequately

address the ISRP’s original review concerns. The ISRP recommended that these

proposals not be funded (Table 2D).

Many of the responses addressed the ISRP’s recommendations and comments directly

and succinctly. A few, such as projects 9107300: “Idaho Natural Production Monitoring

and Evaluation”, and 9700100: “Captive Rearing Initiative for Salmon River Chinook

Salmon” were exemplary and might serve as models should the region engage in this

review and response strategy again in the future. In general, the ISRP also found the

CBFWA responses to be very useful. The uniform presentation, point-by-point response

structure, and the obvious attention to editing the response material contributed to the

effectiveness of those responses.

In contrast to this group of responses, a number of the responses seemed to function more

as a rebuttal of the ISRP’s original review comments than as an attempt to address the

review specifics. As one of the participating PRG members noted, “Many of the

responses seemed to reflect some degree of a sense of entitlement regarding the funds

requested and a lack of willingness to objectively address ISRP criticisms.” Where the

response was almost entirely a rebuttal and did not adequately address the ISRP’s

technical criticisms, the ISRP was forced to let the original qualified or negative funding

recommendation stand.

Project-level Monitoring and Evaluation Still Problematic

The ISRP notes with some dismay, that in general, well described monitoring and

evaluation (M&E) plans were absent from most proposals. This has been a chronic

problem in the basin. Perhaps contributing to the problem, it appears that substantial

confusion exists concerning the need for monitoring and evaluation and the identification

of the appropriate scale of monitoring and evaluation for most projects

Many sponsors appear to believe that because they do not view their projects as

“research” projects, that monitoring and evaluation are not needed. Monitoring and

evaluation, in some form, are appropriate and needed for nearly all projects in the basin.

This includes fencing projects, irrigation screening projects, and wildlife habitat

acquisition projects, as well as the more obvious research-oriented projects. However,

the scale, type, and cost of monitoring and evaluation needed will differ dramatically

among project types.

Many responses did not directly address the central scientific concerns of reviewers. The

primary argument the respondents offered was that the proposal was for evaluation, not
ISRP FY2000 Response Review

3

research. This is a meaningless distinction. Evaluation implies conclusions with some

degree of confidence, and that is a form of research. For example in the response for

project 9106700: Idaho Water Rental: Resident Fish And Wildlife Impacts - Phase III,

the responders state that they are not designing an experiment with this project, but then

go on to say that they are trying to identify when and how to release flow augmentation

water in such a way as to either reduce negative impacts or improve habitat. This is an

experiment. How would water management activities be evaluated without testing

hypotheses about alternative treatments/effects? This is the crux of the issue. In the

absence of clear design and procedures for testing hypotheses, the “conclusions” of the

project would seem to be little more than, at best, descriptive natural history (which

might generate some good hypotheses), or, at worst, unwarranted individual opinion that

remains unchallenged by standards of statistical deduction. The responses suggest a

fundamental misunderstanding of how sound, scientifically supported conclusions are

drawn from data (observations). Inclusion of an idea in the Fish and Wildlife Program

document does not address the question of scientific soundness of that idea or of any

particular implementation of the idea.

In its simplest terms, monitoring is the collection of the data needed to determine (i.e.,

evaluate) whether a proposal has attained its objectives or not. For the project to be

meaningful to the goals of the Fish and Wildlife Program, objectives need to include

biological objectives as well as task objectives. For example, a fencing project might be

aimed at rebuilding riparian habitat through construction of XX miles of fence.

Monitoring and evaluation should determine if XX miles of fence was actually installed,

as well as progress toward the goal of rebuilding riparian habitat features (described as

specific objectives).

Scaling monitoring and evaluation appropriately to the goals and objectives of the project

will also serve in many instances to contain the M&E costs to a reasonable fraction of the

budget. A common (but unrealistic) complaint in many proposals was that M&E costs

would exceed the cost of the actual project. Consequently, many proposals justified their

lack of M&E on the basis of this perceived high cost of conducting M&E. While M&E

costs can be very high on some projects, depending upon the project’s goals and M&E

needs, in many cases simpler and more streamlined M&E approaches may be adequate to

assess the project’s progress toward its goals. For example, many watershed and habitat

restoration projects exist in the basin with the objective of improving ecological

processes and functions needed by salmonids (i.e., increasing normative conditions) and

increasing fish abundance. It is probably not necessary to rigorously conduct extensive

surveys of macroinvertebrates in order to determine if progress is being made toward the

goal. Instead a few key water temperature and water quality parameters, as well as

counts of redds, adults, and juvenile fish should be adequate to assess project progress.

Perceived ISRP Bias Against Hatchery Projects

Several responses from sponsors of artificial production projects raised the suggestion

that the ISRP is biased against funding hatchery projects. The ISRP does not believe this

to be true. Indeed, several artificial production projects in the “Fix-It Loop” were

recommended for funding after careful responses from the sponsors adequately addressed
ISRP FY2000 Response Review

4

the ISRP’s original review comments. These include for example, projects 9004400

(Implement Fisheries Enhancement Opportunities: Coeur d'Alene Reservation); 9107300

(Idaho Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation), and 9700100 (Captive Rearing

Initiative for Salmon River Chinook Salmon).

Part of the perception that the ISRP is pre-disposed against artificial production projects

may come from the fact that the ISRP shares the technical concerns of many other

scientists and scientific groups over the uses and risks associated with artificial

production (National Fish Hatchery Review Panel 1994; Busack and Currens 1995;

Campton 1995; Schramm and Piper 1995; National Research Council (NRC) 1996;

Scientific Review Team 1998; Independent Scientific Group (ISG) 1999). Within the

Columbia River basin, great costs are proposed and great potential risks to native stocks

exist for the suite of artificial production projects. The ISRP would be remiss in its duties

under the Power Act amendment, if it did not approach these projects with some caution

and the expectation of technically sound proposals.

The following italicized comment is taken directly from our review of project 9800703,

Facility O&M And Program M&E For Grande Ronde Spring Chinook Salmon. The

comment is important because it covers a point relevant to a number of artificial

production proposals and is a central continuing reason that many hatchery programs

continue to get negative scientific reviews, despite attempts for squeaky-clean internal

operations.

Although it is obvious that the short-term costs of a captive broodstock program

are acceptable compared to the long-term costs of extinctions, loss of genetic

diversity, and reintroduction from other sources, the sponsors have not stated

how they will address the factors that are causing the decline and extirpation of

spring chinook salmon in the Grande Ronde River basin (e.g., passage mortality

and harvest rates). Unless these factors are identified and rectified, it is doubtful

that any type of hatchery program will have long-term success in the restoration

of native anadromous fishes.

Wildlife Monitoring and Evaluation: Linkages Needed between

HEPs and Target Species

HEP evaluation makes sense as a method for defining losses of land and losses of habitat.

It also makes sense as a conceptual approach to wildlife habitat acquisition and

restoration. Indeed, the wildlife portion of the Council’s FWP is based on the HEP

concept and land acquisitions are pursued and accounted for using the HEP currency.

While the ISRP does not contest this approach or the policy decisions behind it, we

continue to have concerns that the monitoring and evaluation of wildlife projects and

programs should not rest solely on a HEP-based analysis. A fundamental premise in the

HEP approach is that target wildlife species (and associated non-target species) will

respond in a positive fashion (usually abundance) to species-specific habitat

improvements. While there are strong theoretical reasons to expect a positive

relationship between habitat improvements (usually brought about through acquisition
ISRP FY2000 Response Review

5

and subsequent land management), biological responses are variable and often complex.

Therefore, a necessary complement to a HEP-based management project or program,

should be a monitoring and evaluation component that routinely assesses the expected

versus actual response of both target and non-target wildlife species.

Justification for Proposal Actions

Scientific viability and justification for a proposed project are not necessarily provided by

language in the FWP or in BPA documents, regardless of what previous review process

they have been through. Documents such as the Fish and Wildlife Program, CBFWA’s

AIWP, BPA planning documents are primarily planning and policy documents. Review

of proposed actions is appropriate in these arenas for the purposes of planning and policy

development, however, review for these purposes does not constitute bona fide scientific

peer-review within the scientific community as the ISRP is directed to conduct by the

1996 NW Power Act amendment.

While it is important that proposed projects be linked to policy measures or directives in

the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program, such linkages even when directly and explicitly

stated, do not constitute scientific or technical justification for the proposed work. The

sponsor’s proposal needs to clearly describe the scientific or technical background,

foundation, and justification for the proposed work.

Subcontractors and Proposal Review

In general, where project proposals included subcontractors, inadequate information was

provided on the subcontractor (if already identified) or on the qualifications needed in a

subcontractor. Proposers’ responses were generally uninformative in the instances where

the ISRP had commented that the proposal was handicapped by the lack of information

on the subcontractor. Several sponsors suggested that it was inappropriate for the ISRP

to request information on the subcontractor.

For many projects, the use of subcontractors is an integral part of the project. Indeed, for

some, such as genetic inventories, success or failure of the project may ride on the

qualifications and performance of the subcontractor. Therefore, inclusion of pertinent

information on subcontractors is essential for the ISRP to be able to adequately review

the proposed project. Selection of qualified subcontractors is a task for the sponsor and

BPA to address after the ISRP’s technical review. Selection or even recommendation of

qualified subcontractors is not an appropriate action for the ISRP.

For projects where the subcontractor has already been identified, relevant information

should be supplied for purposes of review. This includes the objectives, tasks, methods,

experimental design, monitoring and evaluation, etc. for the subcontracted portion of the

study. The subcontractors’ qualifications should also be presented. For proposals where

the subcontractor has not been identified yet, the sponsor should provide qualification

and performance criteria that will be used to select the subcontractor. Additionally, the

sponsor should provide as much information as possible concerning the objectives, tasks,

methods, experimental design, monitoring and evaluation, etc. of proposed subcontractor

portion of the project.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review

6

Resident Fish Substitutions

The ISRPs scientific misgivings with respect to the use of non-native species, particularly

in the resident fish substitution program, has been an area of some concern for the

resident fish managers. In previous reports, the ISRP has recommended focusing on and

using native species and stocks wherever possible, rather than non-native species.

However, this recommendation has not been for a total prohibition on non-native species

as some have interpreted it.

The ISRP would like to specifically acknowledge project 9004400 (Implement Fisheries

Enhancement Opportunities: Coeur d'Alene Reservation) as a good example of careful

use of off-site mitigation using non-native species that adequately safeguards against

interactions with natives species.

Rolling Review Protocols and Review Criteria Being Developed

Logistics and review protocols are currently being developed for the rolling three-year

reviews of ecological provinces and their subbasins. These are expected to start in

January 2000. This is an ambitious and innovative approach to project review that should

provide substantially increased context for individual projects and proposals. While

planning is not yet completed for the mechanics of the rolling reviews, the ISRP and

Council staff intend to include a mechanism for dialogue and interaction between

proposal sponsors and the ISRP that includes sponsor review and comment on the draft

ISRP final report. This should help clarify any points of misunderstanding or

misinformation prior to release of the final report and in turn, eliminate the need for any

subsequent re-evaluations.

Council staff has requested that the ISRP propose a preferred order for the rolling review.

In order to initiate the rolling review process soon and to test and fine-tune the review,

the ISRP proposes to review the Columbia Gorge ecological province first. This

province includes the Wind, Hood, Fifteenmile and White Salmon river subbasins. Each

province-level review is expected to take six months to complete. We propose to start a

second review in April 2000 focusing on the Columbia Cascade ecological province,

which includes the Wenatchee, Entiat, Lake Chelan, Methow, Okanogan subbasins.

After these initial reviews, the ISRP expects to revise the review protocol if needed, for

application to the review of the remaining ecological provinces and subbasins. Although

a specific review schedule for the remaining provinces has not yet been determined, the

ISRP recognizes the complexity and controversial nature of many proposals in the

Clearwater, Salmon, Grande Ronde, Umatilla, and Yakima subbasins. Therefore, it is

likely that the ISRP will give scheduling priority to the Blue Mountain, Mountain Snake,

and Columbia Plateau ecological provinces. We anticipate starting review of at least one

of these during Year 1 (calendar year 2000) of the rolling review process and the others

in Year 2 (calendar year 2001).

Need for an Annual Review Process in FY2001 and beyond?

ISRP notes that FY2001 and beyond are likely to require a limited annual review of

innovative projects and critical need projects. We look forward to discussions with
ISRP FY2000 Response Review

7

Council and Council staff on this issue and offer our assistance in developing programs

and protocols to address this need.

Literature Cited

Busack, C. A. and K. P. Currens. 1995. Genetic risks and hazards in hatchery operations:

fundamental concepts and issues, pp. 71-80 in Uses and effects of cultured fishes

in aquatic ecosystems, edited by H. L. Schramm, and R. G. Piper. American

Fisheries Society Symposium, Bethesda, MD.

Campton, D. E. 1995. Genetic effects of hatchery fish on wild populations of Pacific

salmon and steelhead: What do we really know? American Fisheries Society

Symposium 15: 337-353.

Independent Scientific Group (ISG). 1999. Scientific issues in the restoration of salmonid

fishes in the Columbia River. Fisheries 24: 10-19.

National Fish Hatchery Review Panel. 1994. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service National

Fish Hatchery Review, pp. . The Conservation Fund, The National Fish and

Wildlife Foundation, Arlington VA.

National Research Council (NRC). 1996. Upstream: salmon and society in the Pacific

Northwest. Report on the Committee on Protection and Management of Pacific

Northwest Anadromous Salmonids for the National Research Council of the

National Academy of Sciences. National Academy Press, Washington D. C.

Schramm, H. L. and R. G. Piper. 1995. Uses and effects of cultured fishes in aquatic

ecosystems.

Scientific Review Team. 1998. Review of salmonid artificial production in the Columbia

River basin as a scientific basis for Columbia River production programs, pp. 77.

Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Table 1

8

SECTION II: Tables of ISRP Recommendations

Table 1. Proposals Sorted by Subbasin

Project

ID

Title Sponsor ISRP

response

review rec.

ISRP

June 15

Rec.

FY00

CBFWA

Rec.

FY00

Sponsor

Request

Ocean and Estuary

9702600 Ecology Of Marine Predatory Fishes:

Influence On Salmonid Ocean Survival

NMFS/

NWFSC

Fund Delay

Funding

$0 $200,000

9801400 Ocean Survival Of Juvenile Salmonids In

The Columbia River Plume

NMFS/

NWFSC

Fund in

Part

Fund in

Part

$0 $826,000

Smolt and Adult Monitoring

8740100 Assessment Of Smolt Condition:

Biological And Environmental

Interactions

USGSBRD,

CRRL

Fund Delay

Funding

$199,046 $199,046

8331900 New Fish tagging System NMFS Fund DNF $1,388,800 $1,388,800

PATH and PATH related

9600600 Facilitation, Technical Assistance And

Peer Review Of Path

ESSA Fund for

Transition

DNF $450,000 $450,000

9600800 Stufa Participation In A Plan For

Analyzing And Testing Hypotheses

(Path)

ODFW Fund for

Transition

DNF $745,131 $745,131

9600801 Technical Support For Path NMFS Fund for

Transition

DNF $75,000 $75,000

9601700 Provide Technical Support For Path BioAnalyst

s, Inc.

Fund for

Transition

DNF $27,221 $109,000

9800100 Analytical Support-Path And Esa

Biological Assessments

Hinrichsen

Enviro

Services

Fund for

Transition

DNF $119,900 $125,000

9303701 Stochastic Life Cycle Model Technical

Assistance

PER Ltd. Fund for

Transition

DNF $70,000 $180,000

9700200 Path - Uw Technical Support UW Fund for

Transition

DNF $182,389 $301,081

Systemwide Predator and Competitor Research

9007800 Evaluate Predator Removal: Large-Scale

Patterns

USGS Fund DNF $117,880 $117,880

9702400 Avian Predation on Juvenile Salmonids in

the Lower Columbia River

OSU/

CRITFC

Fund Fund in

Part

$642,600 $642,600

Systemwide Life History Studies

9102900 Life History And Survival Of Fall

Chinook Salmon In Columbia River

Basin

USGS Fund Fund in

Part

$743,558 $799,525
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Table 1

9

Project

ID

Title Sponsor ISRP

response

review rec.

ISRP

June 15

Rec.

FY00

CBFWA

Rec.

FY00

Sponsor

Request

Pacific Lamprey Projects

9402600 Pacific Lamprey Research And

Restoration

CTUIR Fund Fund in

Part

$381,190 $381,190

20019 Evaluate Status Of Pacific Lamprey In

Clearwater River Drainage, Idaho

IDFG Fund Fund $73,000 $119,039

20065 Identification of larval Pacific lampreys

(Lampetra tridentata), river lamp

USGSBRD,

CRRL

Fund Fund $78,700 $78,700

20121 Evaluate Habitat Use And Population

Dynamics Of Lampreys In Cedar Creek

USFWS Fund Fund $134,790 $138,790

20064 Upstream migration of Pacific lampreys

in the John Day R: behavior, timing

USGSBRD,

CRRL

CBFWA

Tier 2 -

Ranked by

ISRP

Fund $298,700

Systemwide Coordination

9800800 Regional Forum Facilitation Services Fund DNF $75,000 $183,500

Lower Mid-Columbia Mainstem and Multi-subbasin

9900300 Evaluate Spawning Of Salmon Below

The Four Lowermost Columbia River

Dams

WDFW,

ODFW,

USFWS,

PNNL

Fund Fund in

Part

$355,838 $385,788

9801900 Wind River Watershed Restoration UCD,

USFS,

USGS,

WDFW

Fund Fund in

Part

$553,717 $1,146,412

Hood, Fifteenmile and Deschutes

9802400 Monitor Watershed Conditions On The

Warm Springs Reservation

CTWSRO Fund in

Part

Fund in

Part

$35,402 $160,917

9802800 Trout Creek Watershed Improvement

Project Multi Year Funding Proposal

JCSWCD Fund DNF $231,126 $483,795

John Day

9801600 Monitor Natural Escapement &

Productivity Of John Day Basin Spring

Chinook

ODFW Fund Delay

Funding

$159,800 $179,800

9605300 Upper Clear Creek Dredge Tailings

Restoration

USFS/CTU

IR

Fund Delay

Funding

$85,000 $85,000

20131 Enhance North Fork John Day River

Subbasin Anadromous Fish Habitat

CTUIR Fund Delay

Funding

$205,544 $205,544

9801700 Eliminate Gravel Push-Up Dams On

Lower North Fork John Day

NFJDWC Fund Delay

Funding

$90,250 $90,250

9801800 John Day Watershed Restoration CTWSRO Fund Delay

Funding

$424,575 $459,918
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Table 1

10

Project

ID

Title Sponsor ISRP

response

review rec.

ISRP

June 15

Rec.

FY00

CBFWA

Rec.

FY00

Sponsor

Request

Umatilla, Walla Walla, and Rock Creek

8903500 Umatilla Hatchery Operation and

Maintenance

ODFW Fund

existing

activities

Delay

Funding

$850,000 $895,346

9000500 Umatilla Hatchery Monitoring And

Evaluation

ODFW Fund

existing

activities

Fund in

Part

$650,000 $721,588

8343500 Operate And Maintain Umatilla Hatchery

Satellite Facilities

CTUIR Fund

existing

activities

Delay

Funding

$775,000 $822,161

8805302 Plan, Site, Design And Construct Neoh

Hatchery - Umatilla/Walla Walla Compo

CTUIR Do Not

Fund

DNF $2,800,000 $6,400,000

20138 Design And Construct Neoh Walla Walla

Hatchery

CTUIR Do Not

Fund

DNF $250,000 $1,380,000

8802200 Umatilla River Fish Passage Operations CTUIR Fund

existing

activities

Delay

Funding

$360,000 $379,000

8343600 Umatilla Passage Facilities O & M Westland

Irrigation

District

Fund

existing

activities

Delay

Funding

$502,000 $703,106

8902700 Power Repay Umatilla Basin Project BPA Fund

existing

activities

Delay

Funding

$550,000 $650,000

20139 Walla Walla River Fish Passage

Operations

CTUIR Fund Delay

Funding

$73,000 $83,400

9000501 Umatilla River Basin Natural Production

Monitoring And Evaluation

CTUIR Fund

existing

activities

Fund in

Part

$480,000 $609,191

8710001 Enhance Umatilla River Basin

Anadromous Fish Habitat

CTUIR Fund

existing

activities

Fund in

Part

$260,000 $305,000

9901100 Assess Fish Habitat & Salmonids in the

Walla Walla Watershed in Washington

WDFW Fund

existing

activities

Delay

Funding

$169,723 $184,723

20127 Walla Walla River Basin Monitoring and

Evaluation Project

CTUIR Fund Delay

Funding

$134,000 $156,931
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Table 1

11

Project

ID

Title Sponsor ISRP

response

review rec.

ISRP

June 15

Rec.

FY00

CBFWA

Rec.

FY00

Sponsor

Request

Yakima and Klickitat

8811525 Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project

Design And Construction

YIN Fund

existing

activities

Delay

Funding

$1,565,000 $1,565,000

8812025 Ykfp Management, Data And Habitat YIN Fund

existing

activities

Delay

Funding

$750,000 $750,000

9506325 Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project

Monitoring And Evaluation

YIN Fund

existing

activities

Delay

Funding

$4,309,934 $4,639,934

9506425 Ykfp - Wdfw Policy And Technical

Involvement In The Ykfp

WDFW Fund

existing

activities

Delay

Funding

$275,000 $275,000

9701325 Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project

Operations And Maintenance

YIN Fund

existing

activities

Delay

Funding

$2,260,160 $2,260,160

9901200 Coordinate/Facilitate Watershed Project

Planning/Implementation

Ki-Yak Fund Delay

Funding

$70,496 $70,496

9705100 Yakima Basin Side Channels YIN Fund Delay

Funding

$601,673 $801,673

9803400 Reestablish Safe Access Into Tributaries

Of The Yakima Subbasin.

YIN Fund Fund in

Part

$771,918 $771,918

Upper Mid-Columbia

9502800 Restore Moses Lake Recreational Fishery WDFW Fund Delay

Funding

$234,890 $234,890

9604000 Evaluate The Feasibility And Risks Of

Coho Reintroduction In Mid-Columbia

YIN Fund in

Part

Fund in

Part

$100,000 $1,418,000

Upper Columbia Mainstem, Lake Roosevelt, Lake Pend Oreille and Coeur d'Alene

8503800 Colville Tribal Fish Hatchery CCT Fund DNF $360,973 $360,973

9001800 Evaluate Rainbow Trout/Habitat

Improvements Of Tribs. To Lake

Roosevelt

CCT Fund DNF $189,636 $189,636

9501100 Chief Joseph Kokanee Enhancement

Project

CCT Do Not

Fund

DNF $396,753 $596,753

9800300 O&M Funding Of Wildlife Habitat On

Stoi Reservation For Grand Coulee Dam

STOI Delay

Funding

Delay

Funding

$97,187 $97,187

9106100 Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area WDFW Fund Delay

Funding

$247,500 $247,500

9204800 Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range

Operation And Maintenance Project

CCT Delay

Funding

DNF $350,000 $383,225

9506700 Colville Tribes Performance Contract For

Continuing Acquisition

CCT Fund DNF $400,000 $1,500,000
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Table 1

12

Project

ID

Title Sponsor ISRP

response

review rec.

ISRP

June 15

Rec.

FY00

CBFWA

Rec.

FY00

Sponsor

Request

9004400 Implement Fisheries Enhancement

Opportunities: Coeur D'alene Reservation

CDA Tribe Fund Fund in

Part

$685,254 $685,254

9500100 Kalispel Tribe Resident Fish KNRD Fund Fund in

Part

$297,000 $297,000

Upper Columbia Flathead and Kootenai

9101901 Flathead Lake Monitoring And Habitat

Enhancement

CSKT Fund Fund in

Part

$95,000 $95,000

9101904 Hungry Horse Mitigation - Nonnative

Fish Removal / Hatchery Production

USFWS Fund Fund in

Part

$428,950 $428,950

8346700 Mitigation For The Construction And

Operation Of Libby Dam

MFWP Fund

existing

scope

Fund in

Part

$500,000 $500,000

9401001 Mitigation For Excessive Drawdowns At

Libby Reservoir

MFWP and

CSKT

Fund

existing

scope

DNF $377,971 $377,971

9404900 Improve The Kootenai River Ecosystem KTOI Fund Fund in

Part

$270,000 $300,000

8806400 Kootenai River White Sturgeon Studies

And Conservation Aquaculture

KTOI Fund in

Part

Fund in

Part

$1,150,202 $2,750,202

8806500 Kootenai River Fisheries Recovery

Investigations

IDFG Fund in

Part

Fund in

Part

$616,596 $616,596

Lower Snake Mainstem and Multi-subbasin

9801003 Spawning distribution of Snake River fall

chinook salmon

USFWS Fund Fund in

Part

$177,666 $182,666

9700900 Evaluate Rebuilding The White Sturgeon

Population In The Lower Snake Basin

NPT Fund Fund in

Part

$409,494 $419,494

Idaho Supplementation Studies and Related Proposals

9005500 Steelhead Supplementation Studies in

Idaho Rivers

IDFG Fund Fund in

Part

$407,744 $560,744

9107300 Idaho Natural Production Monitoring

And Evaluation

IDFG Fund Delay

Funding

$767,512 $767,512

Lower Snake Captive Broodstock Proposals

9703800 Preserve Listed Salmonid Stocks

Gametes

NPT Fund in

Part

Fund in

Part

$185,122 $185,122

Clearwater

20157 Gas Bubble Trauma Monitoring in the

Clearwater River

IDFG Fund Not

Reviewed

$59,000 $45,117

8335000 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery NPT Do Not

Fund

DNF $14,590,000 $20,188,949

8335003 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Monitoring

And Evaluation

NPT Fund in

Part

DNF $992,847 $992,847
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Table 1

13

Project

ID

Title Sponsor ISRP

response

review rec.

ISRP

June 15

Rec.

FY00

CBFWA

Rec.

FY00

Sponsor

Request

9501300 Nez Perce Tribe Resident Fish

Substitution Program

NPT Do Not

Fund

DNF $750,000 $850,000

9608600 Clearwater Subbasin Focus Watershed

Program - Iscc

ISCC Fund at

base level

Delay

Funding

$89,450 $89,450

9706000 Clearwater Subbasin Focus Watershed

Program - Npt

NPT Fund at

base level

Delay

Funding

$98,737 $98,737

9901400 Restore Anadromous Fish Habitat In The

Little Canyon Creek Subwatershed

ISCC Fund Delay

Funding

$196,855 $217,855

9901500 Restore Anadromous Fish Habitat In The

Nichols Canyon Subwatershed

ISCC Fund Delay

Funding

$186,237 $211,237

9303501 Enhance Fish, Riparian, And Wildlife

Habitat Within The Red River Watershed

ISWCD Fund DNF $450,000 $550,000

20084 Protect And Restore The North Lochsa

Face Analysis Area Watersheds

NPT Fund Delay

Funding

$154,782 $204,782

20086 Rehabilitate Newsome Creek - S.F.

Clearwater River

NPT Fund Delay

Funding

$301,689 $364,725

20087 Protect And Restore Mill Creek

Watershed

NPT Fund Delay

Funding

$63,036 $63,036

9607708 Protect And Restore The Lolo Creek

Watershed

NPT Fund Delay

Funding

$203,750 $203,750

9607709 Protect And Restore The Squaw To

Papoose Creeks Watersheds

NPT Fund Delay

Funding

$303,607 $353,607

9607711 Restore Mccomas Meadow/ Meadow

Creek Watershed

NPT Fund Delay

Funding

$166,622 $166,622

9901600 Protect & Restore Big Canyon Creek

Watershed

NPT Fund Delay

Funding

$61,276 $61,276

9901700 Protect & Restore Lapwai Creek NPT Fund Delay

Funding

$61,276 $61,276

8740700 Dworshak Impacts/M&E And

Biological/Integrated Rule Curves

NPT Do Not

Fund

Delay

Funding

$199,485 $199,485

9501600 Genetic Inventory Of Westslope

Cuttthroat Trout In The N F Clearwater

Basin

NPT Do Not

Fund

DNF $180,000 $200,000

Salmon River Subbasin

9700100 Captive Rearing Initiative for Salmon

River Chinook Salmon

IDFG Fund Fund in

Part

$546,385 $546,385

9705700 Salmon River Production Program SBT Do Not

Fund

DNF $931,376 $931,376

9604300 Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation

Enhancement Project

NPT Fund Delay

Funding

$2,800,000 $2,800,000

9107100 Snake River Sockeye Salmon Habitat

And Limnological Research

SBT Fund Delay

Funding

$427,000 $438,461
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Table 1

14

Project

ID

Title Sponsor ISRP

response

review rec.

ISRP

June 15

Rec.

FY00

CBFWA

Rec.

FY00

Sponsor

Request

9901900 Restore the Salmon River, in the Challis,

ID area, to a healthy condition

Custer Co Do Not

Fund

DNF $50,000 $50,000

9600700 Irrigation Diversion Consolidations &

Water Conservation; Upper Salmon R

LS&WCD Fund Delay

Funding

$293,113 $753,816

Grande Ronde and Imnaha

9800703 Facility O&M And Program M&E For

Grande Ronde Spring Chinook Salmon

CTUIR Delay

Funding

Delay

Funding

$489,000 $597,516

8805301 Northeast Oregon Hatchery Master Plan NPT Fund in

Part

DNF $1,217,017 $1,217,017

8805305 Northeast Oregon Hatcheries Planning

And Implementation - Odfw

ODFW Fund in

Part

DNF $226,000 $660,422

Upper Snake above Hell's Canyon, Malheur, Owyhee

20135 Consumptive Sturgeon Fishery-Hells

Canyon And Oxbow Reservoirs

NPT Do Not

Fund

DNF $250,000 $250,000

9500600 Shoshone-Bannock/Shoshone Paiute

Joint Culture Facility

SBT Fund in

Part

Fund in

Part

$282,621 $282,621

9106700 Idaho Water Rental: Resident Fish And

Wildlife Impacts - Phase III

IDFG Do Not

Fund

DNF $119,465 $119,465

9501500 Lake Billy Shaw Operations and

Maintenance and Evaluation (O&M,

M&E)

SPT -

DVIR

Delay

Funding

DNF $221,550 $221,550
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Table 2

15

Table 2. Proposals Sorted by ISRP Recommendation and Project ID

Project

ID

Title Sponsor ISRP

response

review rec.

ISRP

June 15

Rec.

FY00

CBFWA

Rec.

FY00

Sponsor

Request

2.A.1. Fund

20084 Protect And Restore The North

Lochsa Face Analysis Area

Watersheds

NPT Fund Delay

Funding

$154,782 $204,782

20086 Rehabilitate Newsome Creek - S.F.

Clearwater River

NPT Fund Delay

Funding

$301,689 $364,725

20087 Protect And Restore Mill Creek

Watershed

NPT Fund Delay

Funding

$63,036 $63,036

20127 Walla Walla River Basin Monitoring

and Evaluation Project

CTUIR Fund Delay

Funding

$134,000 $156,931

20131 Enhance North Fork John Day River

Subbasin Anadromous Fish Habitat

CTUIR Fund Delay

Funding

$205,544 $205,544

20139 Walla Walla River Fish Passage

Operations

CTUIR Fund Delay

Funding

$73,000 $83,400

20157 Gas Bubble Trauma Monitoring in

the Clearwater River

IDFG Fund Not

Reviewed

$59,000 $45,117

8331900 New Fish tagging System NMFS Fund DNF $1,388,800 $1,388,800

8346700 Mitigation For The Construction

And Operation Of Libby Dam

MFWP Fund

existing

scope

Fund in

Part

$500,000 $500,000

8503800 Colville Tribal Fish Hatchery CCT Fund DNF $360,973 $360,973

8740100 Assessment Of Smolt Condition:

Biological And Environmental

Interactions

USGSBRD,

CRRL

Fund Delay

Funding

$199,046 $199,046

9001800 Evaluate Rainbow Trout/Habitat

Improvements Of Tribs. To Lake

Roosevelt

CCT Fund DNF $189,636 $189,636

9004400 Implement Fisheries Enhancement

Opportunities: Coeur D'alene

Reservation

CDA Tribe Fund Fund in

Part

$685,254 $685,254

9005500 Steelhead Supplementation Studies

in Idaho Rivers

IDFG Fund Fund in

Part

$407,744 $560,744

9007800 Evaluate Predator Removal: LargeScale PatternsUSGS Fund DNF $117,880 $117,880

9101901 Flathead Lake Monitoring And

Habitat Enhancement

CSKT Fund Fund in

Part

$95,000 $95,000

9101904 Hungry Horse Mitigation -

Nonnative Fish Removal / Hatchery

Production

USFWS Fund Fund in

Part

$428,950 $428,950
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Table 2

16

Project

ID

Title Sponsor ISRP

response

review rec.

ISRP

June 15

Rec.

FY00

CBFWA

Rec.

FY00

Sponsor

Request

9102900 Life History And Survival Of Fall

Chinook Salmon In Columbia River

Basin

USGS Fund Fund in

Part

$743,558 $799,525

9106100 Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area WDFW Fund Delay

Funding

$247,500 $247,500

9107100 Snake River Sockeye Salmon

Habitat And Limnological Research

SBT Fund Delay

Funding

$427,000 $438,461

9107300 Idaho Natural Production Monitoring

And Evaluation

IDFG Fund Delay

Funding

$767,512 $767,512

9303501 Enhance Fish, Riparian, And

Wildlife Habitat Within The Red

River Watershed

ISWCD Fund DNF $450,000 $550,000

9401001 Mitigation For Excessive

Drawdowns At Libby Reservoir

MFWP and

CSKT

Fund

existing

scope

DNF $377,971 $377,971

9404900 Improve The Kootenai River

Ecosystem

KTOI Fund Fund in

Part

$270,000 $300,000

9500100 Kalispel Tribe Resident Fish KNRD Fund Fund in

Part

$297,000 $297,000

9502800 Restore Moses Lake Recreational

Fishery

WDFW Fund Delay

Funding

$234,890 $234,890

9506700 Colville Tribes Performance

Contract For Continuing Acquisition

CCT Fund DNF $400,000 $1,500,000

9600700 Irrigation Diversion Consolidations

& Water Conservation; Upper

Salmon R

LS&WCD Fund Delay

Funding

$293,113 $753,816

9604300 Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation

Enhancement Project

NPT Fund Delay

Funding

$2,800,000 $2,800,000

9605300 Upper Clear Creek Dredge Tailings

Restoration

USFS/

CTUIR

Fund Delay

Funding

$85,000 $85,000

9607708 Protect And Restore The Lolo Creek

Watershed

NPT Fund Delay

Funding

$203,750 $203,750

9607709 Protect And Restore The Squaw To

Papoose Creeks Watersheds

NPT Fund Delay

Funding

$303,607 $353,607

9607711 Restore Mccomas Meadow/ Meadow

Creek Watershed

NPT Fund Delay

Funding

$166,622 $166,622

9608600 Clearwater Subbasin Focus

Watershed Program - Iscc

ISCC Fund at

base level

Delay

Funding

$89,450 $89,450

9700100 Captive Rearing Initiative for

Salmon River Chinook Salmon

IDFG Fund Fund in

Part

$546,385 $546,385

9700900 Evaluate Rebuilding The White

Sturgeon Population In The Lower

Snake Basin

NPT Fund Fund in

Part

$409,494 $419,494

9702400 Avian Predation on Juvenile

Salmonids in the Lower Columbia

River

OSU/

CRITFC

Fund Fund in

Part

$642,600 $642,600
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Table 2

17

Project

ID

Title Sponsor ISRP

response

review rec.

ISRP

June 15

Rec.

FY00

CBFWA

Rec.

FY00

Sponsor

Request

9702600 Ecology Of Marine Predatory Fishes:

Influence On Salmonid Ocean

Survival

NMFS/

NWFSC

Fund Delay

Funding

$0 $200,000

9705100 Yakima Basin Side Channels YIN Fund Delay

Funding

$601,673 $801,673

9706000 Clearwater Subbasin Focus

Watershed Program - Npt

NPT Fund at

base level

Delay

Funding

$98,737 $98,737

9800800 Regional Forum Facilitation Services Fund DNF $75,000 $183,500

9801003 Spawning distribution of Snake

River fall chinook salmon

USFWS Fund Fund in

Part

$177,666 $182,666

9801600 Monitor Natural Escapement &

Productivity Of John Day Basin

Spring Chinook

ODFW Fund Delay

Funding

$159,800 $179,800

9801700 Eliminate Gravel Push-Up Dams On

Lower North Fork John Day

NFJDWC Fund Delay

Funding

$90,250 $90,250

9801800 John Day Watershed Restoration CTWSRO Fund Delay

Funding

$424,575 $459,918

9801900 Wind River Watershed Restoration UCD,

USFS,

USGS,

WDFW

Fund Fund in

Part

$553,717 $1,146,412

9802800 Trout Creek Watershed Improvement

Project Multi Year Funding

Proposal

JCSWCD Fund DNF $231,126 $483,795

9803400 Reestablish Safe Access Into

Tributaries Of The Yakima

Subbasin.

YIN Fund Fund in

Part

$771,918 $771,918

9900300 Evaluate Spawning Of Salmon

Below The Four Lowermost

Columbia River Dams

WDFW,

ODFW,

USFWS,

PNNL

Fund Fund in

Part

$355,838 $385,788

9901200 Coordinate/Facilitate Watershed

Project Planning/Implementation

Ki-Yak Fund Delay

Funding

$70,496 $70,496

9901400 Restore Anadromous Fish Habitat In

The Little Canyon Creek

Subwatershed

ISCC Fund Delay

Funding

$196,855 $217,855

9901500 Restore Anadromous Fish Habitat In

The Nichols Canyon Subwatershed

ISCC Fund Delay

Funding

$186,237 $211,237

9901600 Protect & Restore Big Canyon Creek

Watershed

NPT Fund Delay

Funding

$61,276 $61,276

9901700 Protect & Restore Lapwai Creek NPT Fund Delay

Funding

$61,276 $61,276
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Table 2

18

Project

ID

Title Sponsor ISRP

response

review rec.

ISRP

June 15

Rec.

FY00

CBFWA

Rec.

FY00

Sponsor

Request

2.A.2. Pacific Lamprey Projects

9402600 Pacific Lamprey Research And

Restoration

CTUIR Fund Fund in

Part

$381,190 $381,190

20019 Evaluate Status Of Pacific Lamprey

In Clearwater River Drainage, Idaho

IDFG Fund Fund $73,000 $119,039

20065 Identification of larval Pacific

lampreys (Lampetra tridentata), river

lamp

USGSBRD,

CRRL

Fund Fund $78,700 $78,700

20121 Evaluate Habitat Use And

Population Dynamics Of Lampreys

In Cedar Creek

USFWS Fund Fund $134,790 $138,790

20064 Upstream migration of Pacific

lampreys in the John Day R:

behavior, timing

USGSBRD,

CRRL

CBFWA

Tier 2 -

Ranked by

ISRP

Fund $298,700

2.A.3. Fund Existing Activities - Umatilla, Walla Walla, and Rock Creek

8343500 Operate And Maintain Umatilla

Hatchery Satellite Facilities

CTUIR Fund

existing

activities

Delay

Funding

$775,000 $822,161

8343600 Umatilla Passage Facilities O & M Westland

Irrigation

District

Fund

existing

activities

Delay

Funding

$502,000 $703,106

8710001 Enhance Umatilla River Basin

Anadromous Fish Habitat

CTUIR Fund

existing

activities

Fund in

Part

$260,000 $305,000

8802200 Umatilla River Fish Passage

Operations

CTUIR Fund

existing

activities

Delay

Funding

$360,000 $379,000

8902700 Power Repay Umatilla Basin Project BPA Fund

existing

activities

Delay

Funding

$550,000 $650,000

8903500 Umatilla Hatchery Operation and

Maintenance

ODFW Fund

existing

activities

Delay

Funding

$850,000 $895,346

9000500 Umatilla Hatchery Monitoring And

Evaluation

ODFW Fund

existing

activities

Fund in

Part

$650,000 $721,588

9000501 Umatilla River Basin Natural

Production Monitoring And

Evaluation

CTUIR Fund

existing

activities

Fund in

Part

$480,000 $609,191
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Table 2

19

Project

ID

Title Sponsor ISRP

response

review rec.

ISRP

June 15

Rec.

FY00

CBFWA

Rec.

FY00

Sponsor

Request

9901100 Assess Fish Habitat & Salmonids in

the Walla Walla Watershed in

Washington

WDFW Fund

existing

activities

Delay

Funding

$169,723 $184,723

2.A.4 Fund Existing Activities - Yakima and Klickitat

8811525 Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project

Design And Construction

YIN Fund

existing

activities

Delay

Funding

$1,565,000 $1,565,000

8812025 Ykfp Management, Data And

Habitat

YIN Fund

existing

activities

Delay

Funding

$750,000 $750,000

9506325 Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project

Monitoring And Evaluation

YIN Fund

existing

activities

Delay

Funding

$4,309,934 $4,639,934

9506425 Ykfp - Wdfw Policy And Technical

Involvement In The Ykfp

WDFW Fund

existing

activities

Delay

Funding

$275,000 $275,000

9701325 Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project

Operations And Maintenance

YIN Fund

existing

activities

Delay

Funding

$2,260,160 $2,260,160

2.A.5. Fund for Transition - PATH and PATH related

9303701 Stochastic Life Cycle Model

Technical Assistance

PER Ltd. Fund for

Transition

DNF $70,000 $180,000

9600600 Facilitation, Technical Assistance

And Peer Review Of Path

ESSA Fund for

Transition

DNF $450,000 $450,000

9600800 Stufa Participation In A Plan For

Analyzing And Testing Hypotheses

(Path)

ODFW Fund for

Transition

DNF $745,131 $745,131

9600801 Technical Support For Path NMFS Fund for

Transition

DNF $75,000 $75,000

9601700 Provide Technical Support For Path BioAnalyst

s

Fund for

Transition

DNF $27,221 $109,000

9700200 Path - Uw Technical Support UW Fund for

Transition

DNF $182,389 $301,081

9800100 Analytical Support-Path And Esa

Biological Assessments

Hinrichsen

Enviro

Services

Fund for

Transition

DNF $119,900 $125,000

Total in Fund Categories $35,330,364 $40,591,838
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Table 2

20

Project

ID

Title Sponsor ISRP

response

review rec.

ISRP

June 15

Rec.

FY00

CBFWA

Rec.

FY00

Sponsor

Request

2.B. Fund in Part

8335003 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery

Monitoring And Evaluation

NPT Fund in

Part

DNF $992,847 $992,847

8805301 Northeast Oregon Hatchery Master

Plan

NPT Fund in

Part

DNF $1,217,017 $1,217,017

8805305 Northeast Oregon Hatcheries

Planning And Implementation -

Odfw

ODFW Fund in

Part

DNF $226,000 $660,422

8806400 Kootenai River White Sturgeon

Studies And Conservation

Aquaculture

KTOI Fund in

Part

Fund in

Part

$1,150,202 $2,750,202

8806500 Kootenai River Fisheries Recovery

Investigations

IDFG Fund in

Part

Fund in

Part

$616,596 $616,596

9500600 Shoshone-Bannock/Shoshone Paiute

Joint Culture Facility

SBT Fund in

Part

Fund in

Part

$282,621 $282,621

9604000 Evaluate The Feasibility And Risks

Of Coho Reintroduction In MidColumbia

YIN Fund in

Part

Fund in

Part

$100,000 $1,418,000

9703800 Preserve Listed Salmonid Stocks

Gametes

NPT Fund in

Part

Fund in

Part

$185,122 $185,122

9801400 Ocean Survival Of Juvenile

Salmonids In The Columbia River

Plume

NMFS/

NWFSC

Fund in

Part

Fund in

Part

$0 $826,000

9802400 Monitor Watershed Conditions On

The Warm Springs Reservation

CTWSRO Fund in

Part

Fund in

Part

$35,402 $160,917

Total Fund in Part $4,805,807 $9,109,744

2.C. Delay Funding

9204800 Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range

Operation And Maintenance Project

CCT Delay

Funding

DNF $350,000 $383,225

9501500 Lake Billy Shaw Operations and

Maintenance and Evaluation (O&M,

M&E)

SPT -

DVIR

Delay

Funding

DNF $221,550 $221,550

9800300 O&M Funding Of Wildlife Habitat

On Stoi Reservation For Grand

Coulee Dam

STOI Delay

Funding

Delay

Funding

$97,187 $97,187

9800703 Facility O&M And Program M&E

For Grande Ronde Spring Chinook

Salmon

CTUIR Delay

Funding

Delay

Funding

$489,000 $597,516

Total Delay Funding $1,157,737 $1,299,478
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Table 2

21

Project

ID

Title Sponsor ISRP

response

review rec.

ISRP

June 15

Rec.

FY00

CBFWA

Rec.

FY00

Sponsor

Request

2.D. Do Not Fund

20135 Consumptive Sturgeon Fishery-Hells

Canyon And Oxbow Reservoirs

NPT Do Not

Fund

DNF $250,000 $250,000

20138 Design And Construct Neoh Walla

Walla Hatchery

CTUIR Do Not

Fund

DNF $250,000 $1,380,000

8335000 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery NPT Do Not

Fund

DNF $14,590,000 $20,188,949

8740700 Dworshak Impacts/M&E And

Biological/Integrated Rule Curves

NPT Do Not

Fund

Delay

Funding

$199,485 $199,485

8805302 Plan, Site, Design And Construct

Neoh Hatchery - Umatilla/Walla

Walla Compo

CTUIR Do Not

Fund

DNF $2,800,000 $6,400,000

9106700 Idaho Water Rental: Resident Fish

And Wildlife Impacts - Phase III

IDFG Do Not

Fund

DNF $119,465 $119,465

9501100 Chief Joseph Kokanee Enhancement

Project

CCT Do Not

Fund

DNF $396,753 $596,753

9501300 Nez Perce Tribe Resident Fish

Substitution Program

NPT Do Not

Fund

DNF $750,000 $850,000

9501600 Genetic Inventory Of Westslope

Cuttthroat Trout In The N F

Clearwater Basin

NPT Do Not

Fund

DNF $180,000 $200,000

9705700 Salmon River Production Program SBT Do Not

Fund

DNF $931,376 $931,376

9901900 Restore the Salmon River, in the

Challis, ID area, to a healthy

condition

Custer Co Do Not

Fund

DNF $50,000 $50,000

Total Do Not Fund $20,517,079 $31,166,028

Total in Response Review $61,810,987 $82,167,088
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

22

SECTION III: Recommendations and Comments on each FY2000

Proposal in the Response Review

Ocean and Estuary

ProjectID: 9702600

Ecology Of Marine Predatory Fishes: Influence On Salmonid Ocean Survival

National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Short Description: This study will identify and document the relationships between the

distribution, abundance, and food habits of marine fish predators and forage fishes off the

Columbia River and salmonid ocean survival.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $0 Sponsor Request: $200,000

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The proposal justifies funding through 2002, but reduce funding to $180,000 in

FY2000 to account for the acknowledged lack of a need for an additional trawl net. In

2002, there will have been five years of research and a comprehensive peer review should

be conducted before any further support. The objectives of the study are more qualitative

than the ISRP would have expected, but at the levels of funding requested it is an

adequate first step.

The authors have attempted to respond to each comment in the ISRP review. Their

comments clarify that this project is largely developmental, directed to yearling smolts,

and not intended to “quantify total predation rates on salmonids” (1st para. of response).

The project seeks to identify relations between the timing, distribution, and abundance of

predators and available prey, including salmonids. Impacts on salmonid survival would

be inferred from these relationships and estimates of consumption rates by predators.

These rates would be empirically based but would be expressed, for example, as

salmonids consumed per unit measure of the predator species (e.g., numbers of salmon

per tonne of mackerel, etc.). Any estimate of total predator abundance would be derived

from NMFS triennial surveys.

However, there continues to be some confusion due terminology used. Given the above

objectives, the proponents’ responses to other ISRP comments are certainly more

quantitative in nature. For example, in response to utility of the information the

respondents refer to “prediction of overall salmonid ocean survival” and “prediction of

ocean survival of particular groups of salmonids”. Regarding the population size and

distribution of predator species, the respondents describe contour mapping, swept trawl

expansions, and trawl efficiencies. How would depth of predator biomass be accounted

for, and why does trawl efficiency have to be accounted for ... as opposed to just

assuming equal catchability between trawls. Concerning how predation rates would be

calculated; the response involves density of predators in a specified area (and presumably

time period), invokes information on digestion rates, etc. (without citing a source), and

linear expansion to some total number of days. We continue to question that the

objectives of this proposal can actually be addressed by relative or qualitative measures,

or whether it will naturally evolve into the need for quantitative measures in order to
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

23

study the marine survival of salmonids. In this regard, population abundance estimated

from the triennial surveys may also not be informative of the abundance in one area in

one specific time period. Possibly, hydroacoustic methods could be a more direct means

to determine predator abundance during survey periods? However, more quantitative

surveys would require investigation of trawl efficiencies by species and size classes.

There also seems to be confusion regarding the ISRP suggestion of a two-stage sampling

procedure. One reviewer offered this suggestion as a means to increase the sample size

of predators when the predation rate is low and predator abundance large. In this case,

the estimate of predation rate is subject to large random error particularly when sample

sizes are as small as stated in this proposal. The authors suggest that the “sampling rates

are adequate” but acknowledge that the adequacy of their sampling rates “could be

considered one of the questions for this research project”. If so, how would this be

assessed? The two-stage sampling suggested by the ISRP involves sampling large

numbers of predators on-board to determine presence-absence of salmonids in the diet,

and then sub-sampling a much smaller number of predators to examine the species

composition in the diet. The authors state that they are using a two-stage process but we

were unable to identify this in the methods. The methods do refer to stratified sampling

but our interpretation is that the stratification occurs within the random samples collected

during the surveys.

Concerning ISRP comments regarding integration of this project with 9810400 and

responding to comments in the ISRP FY99 report, the authors suggest: (a) that the two

ocean projects have different sampling protocols but that the primary investigators are

working closely together already; and (b) that they have responded to the FY99

comments. Concerning integration of projects, close collaboration and cooperation is an

adequate response. The issues identified in the FY99 report are addressed in the above

discussions.

Further, one ISRP reviewer questioned the benefits of this project to the FWP (i.e.,

“questioned the payoff from such research”). The authors suggest that such research and

associated monitoring will be needed to account for changes in salmon production that

may be attributed ocean and/or freshwater environments. While we endorse studies of

marine processes to understand variation in marine survivals (to determine what we may

or may not manage in that environment), the partitioning of survivals between freshwater

and marine environments will likely be most accurately determined via PIT evaluation

and monitoring.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

24

ProjectID: 9801400

Ocean Survival Of Juvenile Salmonids In The Columbia River Plume

National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center

Short Description: Measure the effects of time of entry, smolt quality, food habits,

growth, and health status of juvenile coho and chinook salmon on survival in relation to

oceanographic features of the ocean environment associated with the Columbia River

plume.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $0 Sponsor Request: $826,000

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund in part. Do not fund objective 4. Other than objective 4, fund for 3 years

followed by a comprehensive review of objectives 1,2 (objective 5 terminate before

this); objective 3 will require more time to complete adult returns. The ISRP

remains unconvinced that the methods and experimental design for objective 4 are

scientifically sound. If applied, we are concerned that there is real risk that the results

will be misinterpreted. The ISRP strongly recommends that NMFS carefully review

these and alternative methods before providing further resources for this portion of the

proposal.

While the ISRP was strongly supportive of this area of research, we clearly failed to

communicate the basis for our concerns about the methods proposed to assess the

importance of the plume to salmon production. This is a large complex research proposal

in which the proponents suggest that the reviewers applied several key misconceptions,

ignored “standard ecological” approaches, and simply erred. Consequently, we have

carefully re-reviewed the full proposal and considered the proponents’ response.

Unfortunately, we again draw the same conclusions.

Objectives 1 & 2 are strongly supported as important research to understand the

dynamics of the plume, its biological processes, and inter-relation with Columbia River

discharge. Objective 5 could be support independent of the other objectives since it

relates to the utilisation of this environment. However, we continue to have serious

concerns about inferences to be drawn from the methods applied to objectives 3 and 4 (in

particular objective 4). Fundamentally, our difference of opinion involves what

constitutes evidence of the importance of the plume to salmon survival and growth.

If we follow the proponents’ argument, periodic sampling of salmonids in and near the

plume will tell us about the importance of these habitats to the growth and health of

juvenile salmonids (survival of salmonids would be inferred). Further, comparisons

between sampling periods (months apart) will allow assessment of these habitats’

importance to salmonid growth rates, bioenergetic health, and incidence of disease. Our

concerns, for example, are these:

a) What would differences in length and weight sampled in different populations tell us

about “growth rate” between sampling periods or habitats?

b) The proponents assume that these will be the “same” populations, and that the

comparisons are meaningful and follow a “well accepted basis for an experimental
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

25

design”. Further, that stock composition of the samples can be determined. (ISRP

comment ... but this does not ensure/suggest that you are re-sampling the same

population as before.)

c) The project will begin my sampling yearling chinook and coho salmon, but what

evidence is there that these large emigrants remain in these coastal waters for extended

periods?

Surely, these issues generate questions about residency of the smolts in coastal waters,

habitat utilisation, and selective mortality between sampling periods. These were the

types of concerns that the reviewers originally intended to relay. These are difficult

questions to address but ones that the ISRP felt were necessary to demonstrate the

importance of the plume to salmon survival and growth. Just because we can measure or

evaluate something does not mean we have actually learned anything.

In terms of the response from the proponents, we remain totally unconvinced by the

simple declaration that objective 4 is being addressed through methods used in ecological

field research. A more thoughtful response and consideration of assumptions seems

appropriate for a proposal requesting almost one million dollars a year.

Two specific aspects of the response also require further clarification. The ISRP

identified an inconsistency in the numbers of cruises identified in various objectives.

Contrary to the respondents’ statement that the May cruise was explained in the proposal,

we can not find any such reference. A related concern is whether that cruise has been

included in the budget requested? Secondly, the ISRP questioned the ten-year time

period for the investigation. This question was generated by the stated application of

regression analyses to examine the relationship between salmon survival and variables

measured during this study. If the ten-year duration was suggested to allow for natural

contrast in the measures, the ISRP simply wanted to flag that such studies are subject to

the vagaries of the natural environment, particularly when studying such a complex and

dynamic environment. More direct test or studies are preferable when practical.

Addressed ISRP review: The response provided clarified aspects of the study but

certainly failed to consider the major concern expressed by the ISRP. In several

responses, the respondents requested that the ISRP provide more justification for our

comments ... this seems a strange shift in the “Burden of Proof” since the ISRP is not the

agency requesting these funds! If the ISRP erred, correct our error; but there is a

responsibility to consider what peer reviewers offer to assist their program.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

26

Smolt Monitoring

ProjectID: 8740100

Assessment Of Smolt Condition: Biological And Environmental Interactions

U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Columbia River Research

Laboratory

Short Description: Evaluate the biology of wild and hatchery salmonids by determining

the effects of rearing and river conditions on smolt quality; assist hatchery managers in

producing fish with wild-like characteristics and thereby increase smolt-to-adult returns.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $199,046 Sponsor Request: $199,046 Umbrella: 20542*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The response did an acceptable job of addressing gaps identified in the ISRP

comments. The statistical analysis protocol for this project is clearer now. The proposed

methods of analysis are appropriate for the purposes of the project. The fact that the

initial analyses are exploratory indicates that establishment of correlation between

specific rearing and river conditions on smolt quality may not be possible. This problem

is a consequence of the relatively few years of data of outmigration performance. The

proposed methods of statistical analysis are clear but it is not clear whether the

anticipated data will be sufficient in quantity or quality to support meaningful

conclusions.

The ISRP continues to emphasize that the entire smolt monitoring program needs a

programmatic review: there are many outstanding questions about overall design,

priorities, coordination, data management, and information synthesis from the results.

ProjectID: 8331900

New Fish tagging System

National Marine Fisheries Service

Short Description: Determine the biological and technical feasibility of using PIT-tag

technology to obtain information on juvenile and adult salmonids. Develop ancillary

equipment to expand the PIT-tag system's capabilities to meet CRB resource stakeholder

needs.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $1,388,800 Sponsor Request: $1,388,800

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund, but the project needs to develop an implementation plan. In addition, the

project needs to be included in a programmatic review of smolt and adult monitoring.

The ISRP wants to emphasize that it is a better strategy for the region to implement adult

detection, as quickly as possible, even with the use of devices that have substantial

inefficiencies rather than continuing research and development until 90% detection

efficiencies are achieved. Our concern is that extremely valuable adult detection

opportunities are being lost, and the need to monitor adults with PIT Tag detection is so

important that they should proceed before the detection devices are “perfected.”
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

27

Specifically, NMFS is seeking efficiencies of 90%, but this high of a goal is not

necessary; they could begin implementation with much lower detection and still obtain

meaningful monitoring estimates using Jolly-Seber.

In addition, more thought should be given to innovative uses of the existing technologies

outside the confines of the fish ladder geometry, rather than directing all research and

development at developing new technology that will work efficiently in the very

unfavorable geometry of the ladders. For example: a collection device (such as a fyke

net) with a standard PIT tag detector in the cod end might be located in the pool at the

upstream end of the ladder where the flow environment is less physically demanding and

short distances from a conventional detector can be assured; alternatively a counting

chamber using the same strategy might be built into the ladder.

Generally, the response addressed many of the questions and concerns posed.

Nevertheless, it is not clear how the results will be evaluated other than “pass/fail.” What

standards will be used to choose between competing systems that work in part? It is still

not clear that the proposed work can be completed in a timely manner if delays occur in

any stage of the development and implementation.

PATH and PATH related

ProjectID: 9600600

Facilitation, Technical Assistance And Peer Review Of PATH

ESSA Technologies Ltd.

Short Description: Test hypotheses underlying key salmon recovery management

decisions, develop decision analysis to evaluate alternative management strategies, and

assist in designing research, monitoring and adaptive management experiments.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $450,000 Sponsor Request: $450,000 Umbrella: 20515*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund for the transition period. The responses did not satisfactorily address the ISRP

comments . The main concerns of the ISRP have to do with institutional commitments to

implementation of data collection design and experimental management regimes. PATH

does not have the authority to make such commitments. We believe that the region would

be better served if there were a stronger linkage between the analytical component of

planning (where PATH is at present the de facto center of gravity) and the institutions

that do have implementation powers.

The responses show that PATH is fully aware of the need to reinvent the region’s

processes for planning data collection design and experimental management. The ISRP

agrees that objective 3 “experimental management” is the direction the region should

pursue. Until the management structure for the region also reinvents itself to better deal

with these planning and implementation tasks, there seems to be no alternative to

continuing interim funding for PATH to function in its analytical role.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

28

ProjectID: 9600800

Stufa Participation In A Plan For Analyzing And Testing Hypotheses (PATH)

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Short Description: Test hypotheses underlying key salmon recovery management

decisions, develop decision analysis to evaluate alternative management strategies, and

assist in designing research, monitoring and adaptive management experiments.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $745,131 Sponsor Request: $745,131 Umbrella: 20515*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund for transition period. See programmatic recommendation and comment in project

9600600.

ProjectID: 9600801

Technical Support For Path

National Marine Fisheries Service

Short Description: Test hypotheses underlying key salmon recovery management

decisions, develop decision analysis to evaluate alternative management strategies, and

assist in designing research, monitoring and adaptive management experiments.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $75,000 Sponsor Request: $75,000 Umbrella: 20515*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund for transition period. See the programmatic recommendation in project 9600600.

ProjectID: 9601700

Provide Technical Support For Path

BioAnalysts, Inc.

Short Description: BioAnalyst, Inc. staff provide technical support for modeling analyses

in PATH. We assemble data and estimates for use in construction, calibration and

validation of models used in PATH. We work with modelers and review their analyses

and output.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $27,221 Sponsor Request: $109,000 Umbrella: 20515*,

20537

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund for transition period. See the programmatic recommendation in project 9600600.

ProjectID: 9800100

Analytical Support-PATH And ESA Biological Assessments

Hinrichsen Environmental Services

Short Description: Participate in PATH. Provide biological rationale for hypotheses, and

develop and test model structures that identify key uncertainties in salmon life-cycle

survival processes. Design alternative adaptive management experiments that maximize

learning.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $119,900 Sponsor Request: $125,000 Umbrella: 20515*,

20537

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund for transition period. See the programmatic recommendation in project 9600600.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

29

ProjectID: 9303701

Stochastic Life Cycle Model Technical Assistance

Paulsen Environmental Research Ltd

Short Description: Provide technical assistance to PATH participants in statistical

analyses of hypotheses regarding past declines of ESA-listed stocks, design of adaptive

management actions, and the future effects of salmonid management actions.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $70,000 Sponsor Request: $180,000 Umbrella: 20537

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund for transition period. See the programmatic recommendation in project 9600600.

ProjectID: 9700200

Path - Uw Technical Support

University of Washington

Short Description: Test hypotheses underlying key salmon recovery management

decisions, develop decision analyses to evaluate alternative management strategies, and

assist in designing research monitoring and adaptive management experiments...

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $182,389 Sponsor Request: $301,081 Umbrella: 20537*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund for transition period. See the programmatic recommendation in project 9600600.

Systemwide Predator and Competitor Research

ProjectID: 9007800

Evaluate Predator Removal: Large-Scale Patterns

U.S. Geological Survey

Short Description: Evaluate causes of large-scale geographic patterns in predation on

juvenile salmon by northern pikeminnow. Examine complex interactions of temperature,

juvenile salmon, and juvenile American shad on predation patterns in mainstem rivers.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $117,880 Sponsor Request: $117,880 Umbrella: 20515*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund for the one year requested. The Northern Pikeminnow Management Program,

project 9007700, should incorporate the results of this project. An examination of this

proposal should be included in the Council’s review of the Northern Pikeminnow

Management Program. In addition, The ISRP recommends that there be close

coordination of this project with project 9007700, but agree that the cost of including the

project as a subcontract under project 9007700 would probably increase the cost.

Perhaps a better way to express our recommendation is that project 9007700 might be

reduced by an appropriate amount to allow funding of project 9007800.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

30

ProjectID: 9702400

Avian Predation on Juvenile Salmonids in the Lower Columbia River

Oregon State University/Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

Short Description: Monitor and evaluate the efficacy of management initiatives to reduce

predation by colonial waterbirds on juvenile salmonids in the lower Columbia River.

Assist resource managers in the development of a long-term avian predation management

plan...

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $642,600 Sponsor Request: $642,600

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The proposal and response justify 3 years of funding to complete the proposal. In

2002, there should be a comprehensive review of the management actions taken.

This was originally a strong proposal but the ISRP expressed concerns about the rate of

expansion of management actions and studies proposed. This response is again well

presented, objective, and continues to demonstrate strong administration and a focused

scientific basis for this work. The authors argue that studies and actions on multiple

species is appropriate due to the linkages between these species (i.e., controlling one

species may simply provide increased predation opportunities for another). The ISRP

acknowledges this and can support the proposal as presented so long as the scope of the

work remains achievable. The project, however, is well integrated within the Basin and

the Inter-Agency workgroup should be responsible to monitor the progress of this work.

Systemwide Life History Studies

ProjectID: 9102900

Life History And Survival Of Fall Chinook Salmon In Columbia River Basin

U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division

Short Description: Facilitate implementation of federal and tribal fall chinook salmon

recovery plans by monitoring and evaluating post-release attributes and survival of

natural and hatchery juvenile fall chinook in the Snake River and Hanford Reach of the

Columbia River.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $743,558 Sponsor Request: $799,525 Umbrella: 20533,

20541*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The scope of this work and the variety of publications argue for a full

programmatic review of this project. The new “province” review approach suggested for

future ISRP reviews may be more effective in analyzing a wide scope project such as

this.

The sponsors have adequately addressed the concerns of the ISRP. The need and ability

to proceed with objectives 6 & 7 were addressed and the status of reporting to date

clarified. The latter could be more fully clarified if the reports/papers were associated

with the objectives that were investigated.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

31

Without arguing whether the ISRP or the proponents “missed the mark ...”, the ISRP

wishes to clarify the basis of our comments on assumptions stated in the proposal. The

assumptions involved in an objective or an hypothesis are not a statement of what you

expect to learn, or why an objective was investigated (e.g., see Objectives 1,5,6,7), but

should be a statement necessary in order to test an hypothesis or to make inferences from

results. Examples of these latter assumptions were also contained in the proposal, for

example;

1. Objective #3 “surrogates for natural fish” ... i.e., the size-survival relations estimated

for hatchery fish are assumed to be representative of associated natural populations.

2. Objective #4 ... this objective assumes equal catchability of hatchery and wild fish in

order to sample representatively.

The distinction between these “types” of assumptions should be clearly differentiated in

future proposals.

The out-year budgets in this proposal have not been reduced for the completion of

Objectives 2 through 5 (15% of current budget) and should be adjusted accordingly. We

further noted that 80% of this budget are for salaries, benefits, and administrative

overhead. A detailed breakdown of the tasks and associated costs would seem advisable.

Pacific Lamprey Research Program

ProjectID: 9402600

Pacific Lamprey Research And Restoration

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Short Description: Assess status and survival limitations of Pacific lamprey in the

Umatilla, Walla Walla, John Day, Tucannon, Grande Ronde basins. Implement and

monitor restoration plan developed for the Umatilla River.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $381,190 Sponsor Request: $381,190

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The sponsors superficially, but adequately, addressed concerns of the ISRP with

the exception that reporting of past results should be given higher priority.

The proposal is well written and describes objectives that are appropriate to the near-term

goal of developing a restoration plan and the long-term objective of establishing naturally

sustainable lamprey populations at levels that support tribal harvest opportunities. The

proposed work seems to strike an admirable, but difficult balance between defining the

information needed to restore lampreys specifically to the Umatilla and the information

needed to guide much larger scale restoration efforts. The sponsor’s response to ISRP

comments was informative. Much work appears to have been done thus far; substantial
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

32

planning has occurred and valuable databases are being assembled that bear on the

restoration project.

Nevertheless, a major concern remains for the ISRP that the project is moving ahead into

restoration actions (starting in 1999) without completion of the comprehensive plan (one

of the project’s objectives) that should serve to guide and coordinate such activities.

Neither the proposal, nor the response, make clear a completion date for the

comprehensive plan, although the Pacific Lamprey Plan in Appendix F of the CBFWA

Draft Annual Implementation Work Plan (August 20, 1999) indicates that completion of

the comprehensive plan is expected in 1999. The ISRP urges that this task be given

highest priority among the present objectives and that it be completed as soon as possible.

The ISRP recognizes that some of the project’s research and survey activities up to this

point have been needed in order to provide critical information for development of the

comprehensive plan. However it appears from the proposal and response that adequate

information now exists for development of the comprehensive plan. Using an adaptive

management framework, sponsors can address remaining information gaps and

incorporate new information as it develops. The comprehensive plan can also be revised

as needed within this framework.

The ISRP reviewed the lamprey projects in relation to the Pacific Lamprey Plan. The

plan demonstrates the need for the suite of research projects to address critical

uncertainties. In addition, the plan appears to provide the vehicle through which

coordination among the existing and new lamprey projects can occur. As a package, the

new proposals address critical needs in lamprey research. Project 20064 should address

uncertainties in upriver stocks, Project 20121 should address uncertainties in downriver

stocks, and project 20065 should provide base scientific information on lamprey. This

package also could include Project 20064 Upstream Migration of Pacific Lampreys in the

John Day River, which received a CBFWA tier 2, and subsequently was ranked by the

ISRP at 14 of 36 (see ISRP 99-3, October 8, 1999). The proposed lamprey projects are

listed below.

ProjectID: 20019

Evaluate Status Of Pacific Lamprey In Clearwater River Drainage, Idaho

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Short Description: Determine the status and life history of Pacific lamprey in the

Clearwater River drainage, Idaho, with emphasis in the South Fork Clearwater drainage.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $73,000 Sponsor Request: $119,039

ProjectID: 20065

Identification of larval Pacific lampreys (Lampetra tridentata), river lamp

U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Columbia River Research

Laboratory

Short Description: Determine characteristics that differentiate sympatric larval lamprey

and evaluate thermal tolerances of larval lamprey by species

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $78,700 Sponsor Request: $78,700
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

33

ProjectID: 20121

Evaluate Habitat Use And Population Dynamics Of Lampreys In Cedar Creek

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Short Description: With emphasis on Pacific lampreys, identify and quantitatively

evaluate populations of lampreys and their habitats in a stream below Bonneville Dam

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $134,790 Sponsor Request: $138,790

ProjectID: 20064

Upstream Migration of Pacific Lampreys in the John Day River.

Sponsor: USGS-BRD, CRRL

Short Description: Using radiotelemetry and tagged lampreys, we will determine timing

and movement patterns of upstream migrating Pacific lampreys. Physical characteristics

of overwintering and spawning habitats of Pacific lampreys in the John Day River Basin

will be measured.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: Tier 2, no funds. Sponsor Request: $298,700

Systemwide Coordination

ProjectID: 9800800

Regional Forum Facilitation Services

DS Consulting

Short Description: Facilitate discussions of Regional Forum teams to enable more active

and effective participation of all team members. Mediate conflicts as they may arise in

and out of meetings and provide "process guidance" to improve decision making.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $75,000 Sponsor Request: $183,500

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. This project does not fit a scientific review and should not be included in future

ISRP reviews. It should receive appropriate administrative review and oversight. The

response from the consultant includes a lot of information, such as evaluation of success

or progress that should have been in the original proposal. The strong support for

continuation of Facilitation Services by the Regional Forum's Implementation Team

argues for funding. Apparently, the facilitation of consensus building and mediation of

conflicts among team members contributes to the success of the Regional Forum. It is

good that they use a consistent facilitator because the issues are complex and require a

solid knowledge base.

Do the budgets of the participating entities reflect a reduction in the costs of participation

because facilitation is being contracted outside the participating entities? Minutes,

emails, meeting setup are probably not a cost-effective use of facilitation services at the

facilitator’s rates. It is not clear what is charged.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

34

Lower Mid-Columbia Mainstem and Multi-subbasin

ProjectID: 9900300

Evaluate Spawning Of Salmon Below The Four Lowermost Columbia River Dams

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Short Description: Monitor, protect, and enhance the spawning populations of fall

chinook and chum below Bonneville Dam. Develop a habitat profile of the spawning and

rearing area. Search for evidence of fall chinook spawning below The Dalles, John Day

and McNary dams.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $355,838 Sponsor Request: $385,788

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The authors responded to all the questions posed by the ISRP. The responses

assisted in clarification of the review concerns and was convincing that useful

comparative data may be generated which may be useful as standards for comparison

with other wild fish rehabilitation efforts, and compared to hatchery alternatives. In

addition, longer term monitoring may assist in assessment of population viability and

perhaps a harvestable surplus.

The ISRP recognized that this is an important project, and commented that the proposal

would benefit by inclusion of summaries of existing information on records of

[spawning] chinook and chum salmon in the area. In the response, the project sponsor

provides the information that spawning population estimates have been developed since

1997. Chinook spawning population estimates have ranged from 1,000 to 5,000. This is

key information that puts a different complexion on questions that were raised by the

ISRP.

The response satisfactorily answers the ISRP question “How will juveniles produced in

the area be distinguished from juveniles that have emigrated into the area from

upstream.” They are expected to be smaller in size. The response from the project

sponsor provides the information that during FY 1999 they feel that they were able to

differentiate the juveniles by size.

The ISRP asked the question “What is the likelihood that enough juveniles can be

collected and marked to be able to expect enough recoveries to be able to estimate smolt

to adult returns?” The response from the project sponsor clarifies the point that this is a

question the project will address in FY 2000. Prior information needed was to be able to

establish the identity of juveniles from this area, along with an idea of their numbers.

During this winter season, the project sponsor will calculate the number that must be

tagged in order to be able to effectively estimate smolt to adult survival rates. They note

that 25,000 to 50,000 fish are typically tagged from hatcheries for this purpose, which

provides a target number. It remains to be seen whether enough fish of a size large

enough for tagging can be captured in the spring.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

35

The ISRP also advised that a pilot study be conducted to document the general magnitude

of spawning. The response makes it clear that such a study has been conducted and that

suitable information is available to provide a basis for proceeding.

There remains some uncertainty of success but little more than in most research

investigations. Also, the responses would have been more effective if actual data had

been presented.

ProjectID: 9801900

Wind River Watershed Restoration

Underwood Conservation District (contact agency), U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Geological

Survey, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Short Description: Restore habitat within the Wind River subbasin to support healthy

populations of wild steelhead and salmon.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $553,717 Sponsor Request: $1,146,412

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. Overall, the project managers provided adequate responses to ISRP questions and

concerns.

It would have been helpful to include, somewhere in the justification, more specific

explanations of proposed actions, e.g., “we gave this activity a high priority because it

would improve habitat in a reach of ‘stream x’ that is known to support approximately ‘y

%’ of the adult summer steelhead spawning in the Wind River system, and this

restoration project is estimated to improve survival to emergence of steelhead eggs by

about ‘z %’”. Quantitative information of this type is usually lacking, but some

justification will help us to see how the analytical process and priority ranking occurred.

It was very helpful to see the Project Prioritization Checklist (A-4) and Project Proposal

Form (Appendix B), but it would have been reassuring to see that projects were sited and

prioritized based on best available information. The Project managers do not seem to

want to deal with the prioritization question except to say they will handle it.

Since the USFS 1996 Wind River Watershed Analysis was apparently used extensively in

the project selection process, it would have been useful to the ISRP to know what the

main conclusions of this assessment were. If the highest priority areas were in lower

Trout Creek, wouldn’t this area have been off Forest Service land? If so, how was the

Watershed Analysis used in them? Also, it was not fully clear from the response how the

steelhead smolt data were used on the project identification process.

Progress in the future needs to be monitored closely and subsequent proposals need to

document that progress and how the projects all fit together to meet watershed goals. The

ISRP expects that these concerns be addressed in the Council’s proposed ecological

province review.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

36

Hood, Fifteenmile, and Deschutes

ProjectID: 9802400

Monitor Watershed Conditions On The Warm Springs Reservation

The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon

Short Description: Monitor stream conditions including macroinvertebrate populations

and sediment; evaluate fish passage at culverts and stream crossings; and inventory fish

habitat in streams on the Warm Springs Reservation.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $35,402 Sponsor Request: $160,917

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund in part to cover culvert inventory, fish habitat survey, and sediment sampling.

Response by the investigators was not detailed and failed to provide the information

needed for the ISRP to understand how the macroinvertebrate portion of the

proposed study would be of significant value.

The sediment sampling portion of the proposal is now adequately justified and this will

likely reveal more than the proposed macroinvertebrate survey. However, the response

does not state how the potential inaccuracies of the McNeil core sampling method will be

addressed or what threshold(s) of the Fredle Index will be considered harmful. The ISRP

would like to know how data from sediment samples will be interpreted.

The macroinvertebrate component of the proposal is still not adequate. Suitable reference

sites should be given in the proposal. The ISRP needs to know that there are relatively

pristine reference sites against which invertebrate samples from altered streams can be

compared. These sites should be located in nearby watersheds with similar geological

and topographic features.

With regard to the proposed habitat surveys, there will apparently be no attempt to

calibrate habitat surveys to fish populations. Granted, populations may be depressed

because of off-site influences resulting in low recruitment, but applying bull trout habitat

suitability criteria developed in the Deschutes Basin to the Warm Springs River system

without some local calibration is likely to result in reduced ability to interpret results of

habitat surveys. The response states that data will be compared with habitat inventories

on federal lands, but not what sites will be used for comparison.

With regard to the question of selecting sub-contractors, the ISRP was interested in the

method used to assess the scientific qualifications of potential contractors.

The ISRP will expect that project managers address the above unanswered concerns in

the Council’s proposed ecological province review.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

37

ProjectID: 9802800

Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project Multi Year Funding Proposal

Jefferson County Soil & Water Conservation District

Short Description: Implementation of practices that will enhance smolt production and

habitat recovery. A Coordinator to work with the watershed Council and local

landowners to develop a Long Range Plan and strategies for implementation.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $231,126 Sponsor Request: $483,795

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. However, the response presents a substantially different proposal than the

proposal originally submitted for FY 2000 funding. The response was written by a new

watershed coordinator who came on board after the original proposal was reviewed by

the ISRP. Details on what is known and what actually would be completed with the

FY2000 and FY2001 funds are still sketchy, but that may be expected given the recent

changes in this program; progress, however, seems quite promising.

The response is a step in the right direction in that it stresses the need for a

comprehensive watershed assessment and long-term restoration plan; however, the

current knowledge of limiting factors within the Trout Creek system appears to still be

fairly incomplete. The general sequence of steps is good. But this proposal should be

completely re-written from the ground up and re-submitted for complete evaluation in the

Council’s proposed ecological province review. For example, results of the EDT analysis

should be summarized in order for the ISRP to make an informed judgment. It is not

sufficient simply to say that an EDT analysis has been done. Likewise, it was not clear

from the response how the results from the 1983 habitat survey will be used, or other

surveys by other agencies.

John Day

ProjectID: 9801600

Monitor Natural Escapement & Productivity Of John Day Basin Spring Chinook

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Short Description: Monitor and assess natural escapement and productivity of John Day

River Basin spring chinook salmon. This project is in direct response to

recommendations and needs of the PATH project.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $159,800 Sponsor Request: $179,800 Umbrella: 20514*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. However, it is the opinion of the ISRP that the sampling plan for monitoring

natural escapement and productivity of John Day Basin Spring Chinook is short sighted.

This project called for extensive spawning surveys for spring chinook. Surveys were

expanded to include 54 miles of stream segments in 1998 contiguous to the traditional

index areas (55 miles of stream segments). Given that the length of the John Day River

from the mouth on the Columbia to the headwaters of the mainstem is approximately 280
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

38

miles, there are several hundreds or thousands of miles of stream reaches in the John Day

Basin which have no possibility of being surveyed. In so far as the initial index areas

were selected by ad hoc subjective judgement, the extensive surveys added are ad hoc

and subjective. The current sampling plan may be adequate for the immediate future, if it

is correct that current flow and temperature prevents spawning in all but the surveyed 109

miles and the main objective is to be able to document a decline in spawners.

The current sampling plan will not adequately monitor the effects of habitat improvement

projects in the future. Experience with coho sampling on coastal streams by ODFW

using the same methods proposed here greatly overestimated abundance and the

experience should not be repeated in the John Day Basin or other basins. The project

should also be improved by including steelhead. Wild steelhead populations in the John

Day are very valuable and survey data on these fish is critically needed. The sponsors

should develop a valid stratified random sampling plan or other basin wide sampling plan

for both chinook and steelhead that selects survey reaches from all areas which are not

blocked to spawners by natural features.

The ISRP is concerned that the project, as presently designed, cannot provide adequate

monitoring information on anadromous fishes to other habitat improvement projects in

the basin. If the project managers only survey where the fish are known to exist, the

ISRP doubts that useful information can be provided to monitor effects of, for example,

Project #9605300 (Upper Clear Creek Dredge Tailings Restoration), Project #20131

(Enhance North Fork John Day River Subbasin Anadromous Fish Habitat), Project

#9801700 (Eliminate Gravel Push-Up Dams On Lower North Fork John Day), and

Project #9801800 (John Day Watershed Restoration).

The project sponsors are depending on complete detection of PIT-tagged adults at

downstream dams for estimation of smolt-to-adult return rates. Presently, only Bonneville

Dam has adult detection facilities, and the detection rates at Bonneville Dam are quite

low. Significant improvements are not expected in the immediate future. Even with

perfect detection rates at Bonneville, the estimated numbers of PIT-tagged adults to the

John Day River would be suspect because of straying and mortality of adults before they

enter the mouth of the John Day River. Detection of PIT-tagged adults returning to the

basin will be a challenge, but can potentially be improved by methods such as use of

hand held scanners for PIT-tags on the spawning grounds.

Other concerns of the ISRP in the original review have been adequately addressed by the

sponsors.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

39

ProjectID: 9605300

Upper Clear Creek Dredge Tailings Restoration

USDA Forest Service, Umatilla National Forest; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla

Indian Reservation

Short Description: Restore floodplain function to dredge minded reaches of the North

Fork John Day River tributaries by rehabilitating areas with tailing piles that restrict river

flow.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $85,000 Sponsor Request: $85,000 Umbrella: 20522

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The project has potential benefit to fish and wildlife but still lacks biological

monitoring and evaluation or coordination with other projects to determine if the efforts

are successful. The other concerns of the ISRP were adequately addressed by the

sponsor. While a full-scale biological monitoring and evaluation program may not be

necessary in addition to the physical monitoring, it is important to conduct biological

monitoring such as an annual redd count of the entire project area. Granted this is not a

“research project”, but monitoring for effectiveness of the project is a necessary

component called for in the 1996 Amendment to the Power Act.

The sponsor agreed that coordination with Project #9801600 (Natural Escapement &

Productivity of John Day Basin Spring Chinook) and #9703400 (Monitor Fine Sediments

and Sedimentation in John Day and Grande Ronde Rivers) would be helpful and we

strongly encourage them to pursue this coordination as well as to continue to monitor the

physical floodplain recovery.

ProjectID: 20131

Enhance North Fork John Day River Subbasin Anadromous Fish Habitat

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Short Description: Increase production of indigenous wild stocks of spring chinook

salmon and summer steelhead within the North Fork of the John Day River Subbasin.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $205,544 Sponsor Request: $205,544

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The sponsor provided adequate responses to most of the specific ISRP comments,

but the sponsor did not adequately address the ISRP recommendation: “Delay funding

until a monitoring plan for anadromous fish is presented.” The sponsor states that the

project will coordinate with pertinent entities/projects to obtain assessment information

regarding redd counts, larval, juvenile, and smolt salmonid counts. However, evidence of

existence of these data is not provided, and they do not demonstrate how they will use

this data to measure the success of their project. The ISRP strongly encourages

coordination with Project #9801600 (Natural Escapement & Productivity of John Day

Basin Spring Chinook) for an expanded survey for chinook and #9703400 (Monitor Fine

Sediments and Sedimentation in John Day and Grande Ronde Rivers) for long term

monitoring of project results.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

40

Granted this is not a “research project”, but monitoring for effectiveness of the project is

a necessary component called for in the 1996 Amendment to the Power Act.

ProjectID: 9801700

Eliminate Gravel Push-Up Dams On Lower North Fork John Day

North Fork John Day Watershed Council

Short Description: Modify irrigation pumping stations by replacing above-ground suction

screens with sub-surface collectors. Eliminate flow modification, migration

impediments, and vegetation disruption and destruction inflicted during construction of

gravel push-up dams.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $90,250 Sponsor Request: $90,250

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The sponsor provided adequate responses to most of the specific ISRP comments,

but the sponsor did not adequately address the ISRP recommendation to “Delay funding

until biological monitoring questions beyond water quality are addressed.” The sponsor

did acknowledge that they would investigate coordination with Project No. 9801600

(Natural Escapement & Productivity of John Day Basin Spring Chinook). However,

evidence of existence of adequate data is not provided, and they do not demonstrate how

they will use this data to measure the success of their project. Similarly, we strongly

suggest coordination with project #9703400 (Monitor Fine Sediments and Sedimentation

in John Day and Grande Ronde Rivers).

Granted this is not a ‘research project’, but monitoring for effectiveness of the project is a

necessary component called for in the 1996 Amendment to the Power Act.

ProjectID: 9801800

John Day Watershed Restoration

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon

Short Description: Implement protection and restoration actions to improve water quality,

water quantity, and fish habitat, and eliminate passage barriers for anadromous and

resident fish.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $424,575 Sponsor Request: $459,918

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The responses clearly and adequately addressed the ISRP concerns. Moreover, it

was refreshing to read responses to the original ISRP review which were complete,

detailed, and not defensive.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

41

Umatilla, Walla Walla, and Rock Creek

ProjectID: 8903500

Umatilla Hatchery Operation and Maintenance

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Short Description: Restore Umatilla River Chinook and steelhead fisheries and

populations through release of subyearling and yearling smolts produced at Umatilla

Hatchery

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $850,000 Sponsor Request: $895,346 Umbrella: 20516*,

20523

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund existing activities.

Programmatic Comments and Recommendation for Umatilla and Walla Walla project in

Response Review:

Fund to maintain and monitor existing operations in the Umatilla and Walla Walla until a

province level review. (8903500; 9000500; 8343500; 8802200; 8343600; 8902700;

9000501; 8710001; 20139; 9901100; 20127) Do not fund planning, construction or

development of new facilities in the Umatilla or Walla Walla until the province level

review is complete (8805302, 20138). Future funding must be contingent on the outcome

of the review.

In its June 15 report, the ISRP recommended that the entire Umatilla Program should be

reviewed by the Council to see whether it is time to shift its emphasis. In response, the

co-managers stated “The co-managers agree that a thorough review of the Umatilla

Program is warranted........Given the investment of time and money into the fish

currently being produced for FY 2000, it seems most prudent to conduct a Umatilla

Program review while continuing to operate the hatchery as approved under the Master

Plan.” The ISRP concurs with this conclusion. A full-scale programmatic review should

be scheduled within the first two years of the rolling province level reviews. A timetable

for this review and subsequent decisions is highly recommended. There are overarching

policy questions that must be addressed in such a process, such as at what point do you

stop or shift emphasis at major facilities, and how?

Because the hatchery and its supporting programs are production facilities (with live fish

on hand), funding for their operations and supporting programs should continued pending

the results of comprehensive review. In this regard the ISRP questions the wisdom of

initiating new programs or construction before the comprehensive review is carried out.

We therefore recommend continuing funding at a base level, with no new construction.

Moreover, the responses to projects 8805302 “ Plan, Site, Design and Construct NEOH

Hatchery - Umatilla/Walla Walla Component” and 20138 “Design And Construct

NEOH Walla Walla Hatchery” have not convinced the reviewers that these hatchery

plans will successfully re-build the wild chinook population, particularly in light of

harvests, which are likely underestimated, and the problems at Umatilla hatchery

(extremely low survival and return). Perhaps the subsequent reviews which the response
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

42

indicates are to follow will provide the further study required, although the reviewers

suspect these are mainly to address operational details and less directed at overall

feasibility. If constructed, and not able to meet the intended purpose, what do you do

with these facilities? Success is contingent upon better survival conditions. The question

remains as to whether these funds are better directed at addressing methods to improve

wild fish survival in natural habitat (counterbalance the poor marine survival conditions

by improving the freshwater stage of the life history) or through release of hatchery fish

to re-build the wild population, or both. If it is to be the latter, there is insufficient

information in the proposal to justify funding these proposals. It is not clear in the

proposal or the response to the review of this project that the goal of re-establishing wild

chinook can be achieved. A model of population re-structuring, given current survivals,

might assist, but evidence from reviews in nearby basins (Snake River, Mundy 1999)

points to the serious constraints.

The level of concern evident here by the reviewers and the co-managers adds to the

concerns for other existing and planned hatchery facilities. A more comprehensive

review and evaluation of all basin facilities is required.

The reviewers specifically noted that many of the responses do not specifically address

scientific concerns as is appropriate in an annual peer review of performance. Rather, the

responses rely on references to planning documents to justify the program.

ProjectID: 9000500

Umatilla Hatchery Monitoring And Evaluation

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Short Description: Evaluate juvenile rearing, marking, tagging, survival, stock life

history, fish health, mass marking, straying, sport fishing and catch contribution for

salmon and steelhead reared in oxygen supplemented and standard raceways at Umatilla

Hatchery.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $650,000 Sponsor Request: $721,588 Umbrella: 20516*,

20523

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund existing activities. See programmatic recommendation for Umatilla and Walla

Walla under project 8903500. Reviewers noted that a thorough response was provided

that added to the justification for this work. However, an ability to detect a difference in

raceway performance with respect to improving survival remains doubtful due to the

variable nature of returns and uncertainties in survival estimates. Differences would have

to be very large to be detectable.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

43

ProjectID: 8343500

Operate And Maintain Umatilla Hatchery Satellite Facilities

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

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

Umatilla Basin. Collect, hold and spawn broodstock and provide eggs to ODFW and

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

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $775,000 Sponsor Request: $822,161 Umbrella: 20516,

20523

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund existing activities. See programmatic recommendation for Umatilla and Walla

Walla under project 8903500. Most concerns were addressed in the review response,

except the issue of whether or not smolt-to-adult survival has been increased.

ProjectID: 8805302

Plan, Site, Design And Construct Neoh Hatchery - Umatilla/Walla Walla

Component

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Short Description: Add incubation/juvenile rearing to the Walla Walla brood facility to

rear summer steelhead and spring chinook salmon for acclimation/release in the Walla

Walla and Umatilla Basins. Construct acclimation facilities to accommodate all juvenile

salmon and st

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $2,800,000 Sponsor Request: $6,400,000 Umbrella: 20523

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Do not fund planning or development of new facilities in the Walla Walla until the

province level review is complete. See programmatic recommendation for Umatilla and

Walla Walla under project 8903500.

ProjectID: 20138

Design And Construct Neoh Walla Walla Hatchery

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Short Description: Add incubation/juvenile rearing capabilities to the existing S. F. Walla

Walla brood facility to produce 350,000 spring chinook salmon for release in the Walla

Walla River and construct an adult broodstock collection facility.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $250,000 Sponsor Request: $1,380,000

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Do not fund planning or development of new facilities in the Walla Walla until the

province level review is complete. See programmatic recommendation for Umatilla and

Walla Walla under project 8903500.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

44

ProjectID: 8802200

Umatilla River Fish Passage Operations

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Short Description: Increase survival of migrating juvenile and adult salmon and summer

steelhead in the Umatilla Basin by operating passage facilities, flow enhancement

measures, trap facilities, and transport equipment to provide adequate passage conditions.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $360,000 Sponsor Request: $379,000 Umbrella: 20516

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund existing operations. See programmatic recommendation for Umatilla and Walla

Walla under project 8903500. The response agreed there should be a programmatic

review of this project, along with projects 8343600 and 8902700. We believe it needs to

be reviewed in a larger context than these three, including the 11 projects we listed under

8903500, Umatilla Hatchery Operation and Maintenance. The response observed that

there have been several “evaluations” as part of program planning. This response fails to

recognize the particular responsibility of the ISRP to carry out a review with specific

criteria identified by congress. This project is tied to the others we listed in the Umatilla

Program by the fact that a primary problem is a lack of water in the river.

ProjectID: 8343600

Umatilla Passage Facilities O & M

Westland Irrigation District

Short Description: Maximize the survival of migrating juvenile and adult salmon and

summer steelhead in the Umatilla Basin by operating and maintaining passage facilities,

trapping facilities, spawning facilities and acclimation facilities according to agency

guidelines.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $502,000 Sponsor Request: $703,106 Umbrella: 20516,

20523

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund existing operations. See programmatic recommendation for Umatilla and Walla

Walla under project 8903500.

ProjectID: 8902700

Power Repay Umatilla Basin Project

Bonneville Power Administration

Short Description: Provide power or reimbursement for power costs for Bureau of

Reclamation Umatilla Basin Project pumping plants that exchange Columbia River water

for Umatilla River water.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $550,000 Sponsor Request: $650,000 Umbrella: 20523,

20537

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund existing operations. See programmatic recommendation for Umatilla and Walla

Walla under project 8903500. The original ISRP comments included a statement that no
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

45

information is provided on the amount of water provided, or more particularly how much

was left in the Umatilla River to benefit fish as a result of this project. The response

provides rather general information on the amount of water pumped, “.....exchange for

approximately 23,000 acre feet of stored water in McKay Reservoir.”, and a “bucket for

bucket” exchange with irrigators for amounts left in the river. It is unclear what the

benefits to fish are from this project and why this project is funded through the FWP.

The response notes that funding is mandated by Congress. We also observe that the ISRP

review is mandated by Congress. If the project was sold to Congress with the

understanding that it would benefit salmon, we believe it appropriate to carry forward a

technical review to determine to what extent it might benefit salmon. If the project is not

targeted on salmon restoration, then it does not belong in the Fish and Wildlife Program.

On the assumption that its intention is to benefit salmon, we recommend that it be

reviewed in the context of the larger Umatilla program review, as noted previously.

ProjectID: 20139

Walla Walla River Fish Passage Operations

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Short Description: Increase survival of migrating juvenile and adult salmon and summer

steelhead in the Walla Walla Basin by operating passage facilities, trapping facilities, and

transport equipment, to provide adequate passage conditions.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $73,000 Sponsor Request: $83,400

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund to maintain existing operations. See programmatic recommendation for Umatilla

and Walla Walla under project 8903500. Again, the problem in the Walla Walla River is

lack of flow and the presence of physical structures that impede passage of fish. There is

a need to continue this project until some other solution, if any, can be found.

ProjectID: 9000501

Umatilla River Basin Natural Production Monitoring And Evaluation

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

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

life histories, age and growth characteristics, and genetic characteristics of adult salmon

and steelhead and their natural progeny in the Umatilla River Basins.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $480,000 Sponsor Request: $609,191 Umbrella: 20516*,

20523

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund existing operations. See programmatic recommendation for Umatilla and Walla

Walla under project 8903500. A thorough response was provided that clarified the

coordination of efforts, provided further justification for the approaches, identified

uncertainties, and indicated how this work might help address the latter. Perhaps they

will find survivals are very low (as found elsewhere) and below recruitment replacement.

Would harvest then be eliminated?
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

46

ProjectID: 8710001

Enhance Umatilla River Basin Anadromous Fish Habitat

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Short Description: Increase natural production potential of summer steelhead, chinook

salmon and coho salmon in the Umatilla River Basin.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $260,000 Sponsor Request: $305,000 Umbrella: 20516,

20523

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund existing operations. See programmatic recommendation for Umatilla and Walla

Walla under project 8903500. Justification for the work as provided in the response

seems reasonable. Cost/ mile may be high, but perhaps that is what it takes. The

reviewers are now persuaded that watershed assessment and habitat rehabilitation work in

the basin is coordinated.

ProjectID: 9901100

Assess Fish Habitat & Salmonids in the Walla Walla Watershed in Washington

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife

Short Description: Determine fish passage, rearing, spawning conditions, and identify

limiting factors for steelhead and for potential reintroduction of chinook salmon, and

assess steelhead and bulltrout distribution, densities, and genetic composition in the

Walla Walla.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $169,723 Sponsor Request: $184,723

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund existing operations. See programmatic recommendation for Umatilla and Walla

Walla under project 8903500. The response clarifies justification for aspects of the work.

ProjectID: 20127

Walla Walla River Basin Monitoring and Evaluation Project

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Short Description:

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $134,000 Sponsor Request: $156,931

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund to maintain existing operations. See programmatic recommendation for Umatilla

and Walla Walla under project 8903500. Coordination of activities and purpose for the

work have been clarified. Such work will be critical to the decision process in the basin

toward restoration efforts - fundamental.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

47

Yakima and Klickitat

ProjectID: 8811525

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Design And Construction

Yakama Indian Nation

Short Description: Design/construction re:

1. Cle Elum: a) M&E Facility, b) Interpretative Center c) Employee Housing

2. Prosser: a) Rearing/Settling Ponds, b) Employee Housing c) Alternative Water Supply

3. Klickitat: Design of Lyle Trap

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $1,565,000 Sponsor Request: $1,565,000 Umbrella: 20510*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund at an appropriate base level until a programmatic review can be completed. In

the ISRP’s June 15, 1999 report, the Panel recommended that the entire set of proposals

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

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

applied to all proposals in the Umbrella (including projects 8811525, 8812025, 9506325,

and 9701325, which are in this response review). In addition, the ISRP listed specific

questions or concerns for each project. The Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP)

submitted a very detailed response that appears to address the concerns raised in the ISRP

review. However, the document is 210 pages and is too long for the ISRP to review in the

depth it deserves in the time allotted to the “fix it loop.” The document submitted by the

YKFP will serve as a starting point for a full scale programmatic review which should be

initiated as soon as possible. Because this is a production program that must maintain

adequate conditions for rearing fish, the ISRP recommends continued funding at an

appropriate base level until the programmatic review can be completed. Project 9506425

should be included in this recommendation even though it was not part of the response

submitted by the YKFP.

ProjectID: 8812025

Ykfp Management, Data And Habitat

Yakama Indian Nation

Short Description: This proposal describes the YKFP’s management and administrative

support requirements for Project operations in the Yakima and Klickitat River basins.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $750,000 Sponsor Request: $750,000 Umbrella: 20510*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund at appropriate interim level to maintain the basic program until province level

review. See programmatic recommendation and comments in project 8811525.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

48

ProjectID: 9506325

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring And Evaluation

Yakama Indian Nation

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

and genetic impacts, guides adaptive management within the project and provides

detailed information on supplementation to the region.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $4,309,934 Sponsor Request: $4,639,934 Umbrella: 20510*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund at appropriate interim level to maintain the basic program until province level

review. See programmatic recommendation and comments in project 8811525.

ProjectID: 9506425

Ykfp - Wdfw Policy And Technical Involvement In The Ykfp

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Short Description: Manage policy and technical oversight of theYakima/Klickitat

Fisheries Project through participation on the project's Policy Group and Scientific and

Technical Advisory Group as delineated in the agreed-upon project management

structure.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $275,000 Sponsor Request: $275,000 Umbrella: 20510*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund at appropriate interim level to maintain the basic program until province level

review. See programmatic recommendation and comments in project 8811525.

ProjectID: 9701325

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Operations And Maintenance

Yakama Indian Nation

Short Description: This proposal provides for the operation and maintenance of the

YKFP's fish production facilities. These facilities are:

1. Cle Elum Supplementation and Research Facility;

2, Prosser Fish Facility; and ,

3. Marion Drain Fish Facility.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $2,260,160 Sponsor Request: $2,260,160 Umbrella: 20510*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund at appropriate interim level to maintain the basic program until province level

review. See programmatic recommendation and comments in project 8811525.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

49

ProjectID: 9901200

Coordinate/Facilitate Watershed Project Planning/Implementation

Kittitas-Yakima Resource Conservation and Development District

Short Description: Enhance Yakima River Watershed Interagency Council's cooperative

efforts to implement Yakima River Watershed projects and activities which are

compatible with biological needs of salmon, steelhead and other fish and wildlife.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $70,496 Sponsor Request: $70,496 Umbrella: 20526*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. Most of the ISRP questions were addressed. Long-term funding should be based

on clear presentation of concrete results. For example, the proposal states that YRWIC

has developed a limiting factor analysis. Some indication of what those factors are would

have been helpful. Some examples of projects that were directed toward priorities in the

basin will help establish the value of YRWIC’s coordination.

ProjectID: 9705100

Yakima Basin Side Channels

Yakama Indian Nation - Fisheries

Short Description: Protect, restore and reestablish access to productive off-channel

rearing habitats, and protect and reconnect floodplains associated with the mainstem

Yakima and Naches Rivers.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $601,673 Sponsor Request: $801,673 Umbrella: 20526,

$20547*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The responses adequately addressed the ISRP comments.

ProjectID: 9803400

Reestablish Safe Access Into Tributaries Of The Yakima Subbasin.

Yakama Indian Nation - Fisheries

Short Description: Reconnect over 100 miles of habitat in ten tributaries that have

adequate flow, by building fishways and screens at human-made barriers. Protect

reaccessed habitat through fencing and property purchase.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $771,918 Sponsor Request: $771,918 Umbrella: 20547*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The questions raised by the ISRP were adequately addressed. The response

clarifies some issues that led to confusion in interpreting the proposal.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

50

Upper Mid-Columbia

ProjectID: 9502800

Restore Moses Lake Recreational Fishery

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Short Description: Restore/enhance the failed recreational fishery for resident species in

Moses Lake, once the premier fishery for resident game fish in the Columbia Basin, in

lieu of lost recreational fishery opportunities for anadromous game fish species in the

upper Col

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $234,890 Sponsor Request: $234,890

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The project managers have gone to some length to justify the recreational warmwater fishery in Moses Lake and to explain how this is related to the Fish and Wildlife

Plan. Overall, they did an adequate job of describing the problem and justifying the

approach. Of particular interest are the testable hypotheses for explaining the fishery

decline, e.g., the apparent proliferation of carp in the lake.

Some detailed explanation of how much, and what type of, data analyses are really

needed to complete Phase I would have been helpful. For example, are there long-term

measurements of turbidity or Secchi depth over time to determine if Moses Lake has

become progressively more turbid? The reference to harvest being a constant was not

adequately substantiated.

ProjectID: 9604000

Evaluate The Feasibility And Risks Of Coho Reintroduction In Mid-Columbia

Yakama Indian Nation

Short Description: Determine the feasibility of re-establishing a naturally spawning coho

population within the mid-Columbia tributaries, while keeping adverse ecological

impacts on other salmonid species of concern within acceptable limits.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $100,000 Sponsor Request: $1,418,000 Umbrella: 20527,

20528

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund in part to continue monitoring in the Methow River Basin. Apparently they are

abandoning efforts in the Methow River Basin and pursuing reintroduction in the

Wenatchee River Basin. They need to develop a proposal with better justification for that

effort.

Even though returns to the Methow River Basin have been low, the study of coho

reintroduction feasibility should be continued there until a complete, comprehensive

justification for switching the focus to the Wenatchee River Basin has been completed.

This is too important a decision to change sub-basins without development of a detailed

study plan and testable hypotheses beforehand.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

51

Upper Columbia Mainstem, Lake Roosevelt, Lake Pend Oreille

and Coeur d'Alene

ProjectID: 8503800

Colville Tribal Fish Hatchery

Colville Confederated Tribes

Short Description: Produce 22,679 kg (50,000 lbs ) of resident salmonids for distribution

to reservation waters in an effort to provide a successful subsistence/ recreational fishery

as partial mitigation for anadromous fish losses above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee

Dams.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $360,973 Sponsor Request: $360,973 Umbrella: 20537

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. However, some emphasis of the project should immediately be used for: 1) survey

and gather more complete data regarding native salmonid presence/distribution and status

and their potential utilization for native species recovery and tribal

subsistence/recreational fishery potential (assuming that there are no known local

redband or cutthroat trout populations within the bounds of the reservation), and 2)

survey of natural production for tribal subsistence/recreational fishery potential within the

reservation. Surveys of small headwater tributaries in Idaho and Nevada have frequently

found remnant populations of redband and cutthroat trout.

The response adequately answers the ISRP’s reservations. Although not clearly listed in

the proposal, the project does match FWP objectives and regional goals for introducing

replacement fish to blocked areas as expressed in the FWP, even though regional

attitudes about using non-native species are changing.

The proposers responded with an informative discussion of availability (lack) of native

species on the reservation, the long history of stocking, and an overall discussion of the

species substitution questions facing the Council and resource managers. The primary

concern of the reviewers, that the emphasis of the hatchery program appears to be on

non-native fishes is satisfactorily dealt with. Project managers explain what was not

apparent to the reviewers, that waters in the Colville Tribal Reservation have been

stocked with non-native species of fish since at least 1913. Because the U.S. Department

of Interior has a duty in regard to the trust responsibility of the U. S. to Indian Tribes, the

Fish and Wildlife Service for many years assumed responsibility for fish enhancement on

the reservation (along with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, who asserted

some authority, up until 1974). The end result is that native salmonids are no longer

present in significant numbers, other than possibly in the upper reaches of some

tributaries, which have not been surveyed. There is no source of brood stock for native

species (which the tribe would prefer to use).

It is commendable that performance objectives in terms of catch are used rather than

simply production objectives, and the project should not be penalized for incomplete
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

52

evaluations in this direction. More ecosystem-oriented evaluations, including natural

reproduction, are beginning, but may be difficult considering the long history of stocking.

The response about the similar stocking practices of the tribe and WDFW regionally is

the sort of project linkage information that the ISRP sought. We agree with the

proposers’ comment that change of the resident fish program toward more emphasis on

locally native stocks is appropriately carried out as an adaptive process within the project

rather than project termination. This hatchery should, however, remain part of the

Council’s overall evaluation of artificial production in the basin and abide by the eventual

recommendations of that review.

ProjectID: 9001800

Evaluate Rainbow Trout/Habitat Improvements Of Tribs. To Lake Roosevelt

Colville Confederated Tribes

Short Description: Increase the quality and quantity of spawning and rearing habitat in

selected streams that drain into Lake Roosevelt by eliminating migration barriers,

improving riparian conditions, improving instream habitat, and protracted late summer

flow conditions.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $189,636 Sponsor Request: $189,636

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund.

The response adequately answers the ISRP questions. Space limitations should not

eliminate the need to provide a concise summary of methods and results (it is not

necessary to restate whole methodology books or data reports, but to give the essence of

why choices of methods were made and how the results matched expectations). The

proposal must make the case that the methods are appropriate and that worthwhile results

are being obtained for the public’s money. This proposal originally did neither, but the

additional information was helpful (although sometimes too detailed). The time-line of

phases and presentation of results was useful for obtaining perspective on the overall

project.

The primary concern of the ISRP was the lack of any report on past accomplishments.

The project managers have provided some preliminary results in their response, and cite

some annual reports and quarterly reports that have been submitted since the proposal

was prepared. In addition, some thought has been given to the ISRP comment that a

statistical analysis procedure was not yet developed. Statistical advice is being sought

from the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. Further efforts to provide concise

summaries of methods and results would be helpful to future reviewers.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

53

ProjectID: 9501100

Chief Joseph Kokanee Enhancement Project

Colville Confederated Tribes

Short Description: This is a stock assessment project, specifically to determine the stock

status, strength, genetics, and local fishery contribution by natural production kokanee.

High entrainment rates are suspected through Grand Coulee Dam. An hydroacoustic

assessment

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $396,753 Sponsor Request: $596,753

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Do not fund.

The proposal continues to be inadequate with respect to plans for meeting those

objectives that have not been met or have only partly been met. However, the work is

important and plans should be made for development of a scientifically sound study. The

response was helpful, but the proposers still do not seem to understand that the

description of their work in their proposal, not their understanding of it, determines

whether the ISRP recommends funding. Defense of incompleteness of the proposal and

continuing statements that no biological conclusions (even interim) need to be presented

are still unacceptable. Clearly, interim conclusions have been drawn because, for

example, focus of the entrainment study has shifted to the third powerhouse. The

response amplifies the ISRP’s statement that the work is important. Information is

presented in the response that shows that there is, indeed, more work to be done to

accomplish the stated objectives. The subcontracts are explained (although it was not

necessary to reproduce the genetics reports). More information in the response would

have been helpful to demonstrate progress at establishing a relationship between

entrainment and the annual drawdown cycle and its timing. The discussion of potential

strobe light application at Grand Coulee was helpful and indicative of the thinking that

the ISRP was suggesting, but the comparisons among reservoirs was not germane unless

the authors believe that reservoir size is important to fish behavior at the outlets (more

explanation is then needed).

The present study design makes no mention of how they will assess the significance of

entrainment relative to the total population. Is there a creel survey? Suppose the

hydroacoustic methods were successful in estimating the total number of kokanee

entrained. What portion of the total population does that represent? Is it a large

percentage or small? We understand there may be some marked kokanee present in the

fishery, resulting from releases of fish reared in net pens. Would it not be possible to

develop a total population estimate, knowing the number of kokanee released and the

percentage they make up of the catch (in a sample of the catch)?
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

54

ProjectID: 9800300

O&M Funding Of Wildlife Habitat On STOI Reservation For Grand Coulee Dam

Spokane Tribe of Indians

Short Description: Operations and maintenance of lands acquired for wildlife protection

of SIR

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $97,187 Sponsor Request: $97,187 Umbrella: na

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Delay funding until the sponsors address the original ISRP concerns. Although

additional information was provided, the response still did not provide the summary of

procedures and biological benefits that the ISRP was expecting in the proposal. The

response again simply referred to published HEP procedures and CBFWA guidelines

without any attempt to describe what these are or what was done using them. Simple

summaries would have been helpful to reviewers and could have helped make an

otherwise good proposal better and more intelligible. The proposal (and the response)

should stand alone without the reader having to look up other documents. In addition, the

response did not improve the description of objectives.

ProjectID: 9106100

Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Short Description: This project request is for the third year operation and maintenance

funding for the Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area covering over 19,000 acres in Lincoln

County.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $247,500 Sponsor Request: $247,500

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The responses adequately addressed the ISRP’s concerns. The proposers describe

the WDFW’s management plans, the status of sharptailed grouse populations, and the

role of the Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area in the biological requirements of the species.

Species-specific objectives are given. Questions of fire protection were addressed

adequately. The reasoning for Grand Coulee mitigation is provided. The objectives were

expanded, although still were largely task statements. The responses made clear what

was actually being done and what was projected for the future. Questions about the

reliability of population estimates remain. Although the responses assured the ISRP that

the staff are qualified, no resumes were provided as required in the initial request for

proposals.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

55

ProjectID: 9204800

Hellsgate Big Game Winter Range Operation And Maintenance Project

Colville Confederated Tribes, Fish & Wildlife Department

Short Description: To protect, enhance and evaluate wildlife habitats and species for

partial mitigation for losses to wildlife resulting from Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph

Dams.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $350,000 Sponsor Request: $383,225 Umbrella: 20509*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Delay funding until the proposers supply a management plan that includes protocols

for monitoring and evaluation, including at least some well-chosen direct biological

measures (e.g., censuses or indexes of condition of animals for some target

populations, measures of diversity and abundance of wildlife). The proposers should

be able to provide the needed information from their draft management plan and by

developing some appropriate monitoring and evaluation protocols to support it.

The responses adequately address many of the ISRP’s concerns. However, several key

elements remain unavailable for scientific review. The response states existence of a draft

site-specific management plan, but its key elements (target management units,

management goals, methods, and evaluation procedures for each) are not provided. This

is the central information needed for scientific evaluation of a proposal for management

and operations of land to benefit wildlife. Further, the responses do not provide a

scientifically sound monitoring and evaluation plan. The ISRP accepts that goals of land

management to benefit wildlife are long-term and may be realized only over many years;

they accept that active enhancement need not be a part of effective land management.

Nevertheless, monitoring for benefits to wildlife, measured at the level of at least some

well-chosen species, is a necessary element of evaluation of this sort of project. HEP

alone is an indirect measure of habitat attributes, does not necessarily generalize from

site-to-site well or translate into wildlife abundance, and thus does not meet scientific

standards for evaluation of benefit to wildlife. The respondents greatly overstate the

information provided by HEP. Also, they seem to rely on habitat-typing for assessment of

site potential to determine management goals; this approach has many scientific

shortcomings and can result in management goals that are poorly suited to a site and

difficult or expensive to attain. The project managers should at least be aware of the

potential shortcomings of this method of habitat evaluation.

The responses adequately described what was meant by increasing biodiversity by letting

agricultural and grazing lands revert to natural conditions. The “letting nature heal itself”

approach is a good strategy that should often be cost-effective. The responses adequately

described the species intended to be supported. Linkages among projects by way of

coordination are fine. The summarization of the site-specific management plan was

helpful, though too limited for full evaluation. Ideally, the respondents could supply a

summary of the management plan that more fully developed their management goals and,

especially, how progress toward them is assessed and evaluated. Although the

philosophical approach of the group is now much more clear, it is not clear how decisions
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

56

to adopt active management are reached or how the outcome of such active management

is judged.

ProjectID: 9506700

Colville Tribes Performance Contract For Continuing Acquisition

Colville Confederated Tribes, Fish & Wildlife Department

Short Description: To project, enhance and evaluate wildlife habitats and species for

partial mitigation for losses to wildlife resulting from Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph

Dams.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $400,000 Sponsor Request: $1,500,000 Umbrella: 20509*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund at some level; the CBFWA recommended level looks appropriate. Future

funding for operation and management of these lands should be contingent on supplying

a clear management plan that includes adequate monitoring and evaluation, using direct

measures of target species.

The responses clarify the opportunistic nature of the proposal, that is, having funds

available to purchase properties that may come on the market and meet the selection

criteria. The respondents also supplied a summary and discussion of criteria for selecting

and prioritizing lands for acquisition. The responses did not clearly answer the question

about priority for disjunct versus contiguous lands in terms of wildlife needs, but overall

selection criteria are biologically reasonable. Although the respondents do not clarify the

type of conservation easements they might seek or accept, they clarify that purchase is

the main objective of this proposal.

ProjectID: 9004400

Implement Fisheries Enhancement Opportunities: Coeur D'Alene Reservation

Coeur d'Alene Tribe

Short Description: Enhance critical watershed habitat to mitigate limiting factors for

westslope cutthroat and bull trout in the Coeur d'Alene subbasin. Maintain compensatory

harvest opportunities and develop environmental educational programs in local schools.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $685,254 Sponsor Request: $685,254

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The original proposal was generally excellent. The response to the ISRP’s

questions about Objective 3, the construction of put-and-take trout ponds, was of equally

high quality. It is clear that the Tribe has thought through their management strategy, has

emphasized native stocks, but also needs some interim fishing opportunities to take

pressure off the native fish restoration efforts. The put-and-take ponds seem well located

(in closed basins not accessible to native species) and are designed to avoid the problems

that concerned the ISRP.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

57

ProjectID: 9500100

Kalispel Tribe Resident Fish

Kalispel Tribe of Indians

Short Description: Assess native trout habitat in tributaries to the Pend Oreille River and

implement recommendations for enhancement. Provide largemouth bass habitat in

mainstem Pend Oreille River and supplement population. Monitor and evaluate all

enhancement measures.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $297,000 Sponsor Request: $297,000

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The proposers provide good citations for success of largemouth bass

supplementation elsewhere. On this basis one would assume that their program would

have some success. Unfortunately, the cases where supplementation has not been

effective (usually just unnecessary because of adequate natural spawning) are not well

reported in the literature (stocking programs are just dropped). The effects of fluctuating

water levels on spawning success are well documented and these effects may be

occurring in this situation. Also, over-wintering success of first year fish can be low in

cold climates, which is one reason the published supplementation efforts have often used

yearlings for stocking. This may also be occurring there. On balance, the ISRP is willing

to accept on the basis of the response that the supplementation project has merit and is

worthy of funding as long as a thorough monitoring program attests to its value.

Upper Columbia Flathead and Kootenai

ProjectID: 9101901

Flathead Lake Monitoring And Habitat Enhancement

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes

Short Description: Implement and monitor fisheries improvement activities within the

Flathead Indian Reservation portion of the Flathead Lake basin. Research factors limiting

successful application of mitigation measures within Flathead Lake.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $95,000 Sponsor Request: $95,000 Umbrella: 20554*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The responses adequately cover the concerns of the ISRP panel, especially the UM

subcontract for trophic studies. The proposers and the ISRP agree that the proposal

format does not do justice to this multi-faceted project, and that the more thorough

review recommended by the ISRP is preferable. Considering the small cost and integral

nature of the subcontract to the mitigation strategy, it warrants funding.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

58

ProjectID: 9101904

Hungry Horse Mitigation - Nonnative Fish Removal / Hatchery Production

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Short Description: Conduct nonnative fish removal in Lake McDonald in Glacier

National Park to facilitate restoration of native bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout in

the Flathead drainage; produce hatchery fish for offsite stocking to mitigate Flathead

Lake losses.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $428,950 Sponsor Request: $428,950 Umbrella: 20554*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The response adequately covers the ISRP concerns over non-native stocking. It is

clear now that the non-natives are being stocked into lakes where conflicts with native

fish restoration will not occur.

ProjectID: 8346700

Mitigation For The Construction And Operation Of Libby Dam

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks

Short Description: Research, design, execute and monitor watershed / habitat

enhancement projects that mitigate for native fish losses caused by hydropower

construction and operation.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $500,000 Sponsor Request: $500,000 Umbrella: 20517*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund at level to maintain existing scope of investigation as in FY99, but do not

expand scope of project until it is reviewed in the “rolling review.” This was a good

proposal that was generally supported by the ISRP. The ISRP’s reservation was for

increasing the scope of the project without a more thorough review. The response was

adequate to support continuation. The regrouping of projects in the basin is probably

good, but the response did not adequately alleviate the ISRP’s confusion. A more

detailed review of all projects and subprojects in the basin is needed for the ISRP to

understand the history and flexible objectives of this on-going and fluid set of projects.

ProjectID: 9401001

Mitigation For Excessive Drawdowns At Libby Reservoir

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes

Short Description: Mitigate for fish and fish habitat losses due to excessive drafting of

Libby Reservoir for power production (Fish and Wildlife Program measures 903(a) and

(b)).

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $377,971 Sponsor Request: $377,971 Umbrella: 20517*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund at level to maintain existing scope (FY99) of investigation, but do not expand

scope of project until it is reviewed in “rolling review.” There is obvious confusion

over what constitutes a combining of proposals as recommended by the ISRP previously.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

59

In this instance, the project is apparently being kept as a separate BPA number but

“combined” under the umbrella proposal. In this sense, the combining that the ISRP

again recommended for FY2000 has been done by the sponsor. The ISRP reviewers did

not fully appreciate the extent that the sponsors had viewed the umbrella as the

“proposal” and the components as sub-proposals. In this context, this separate proposal

is reasonable. A second concern was the scientific soundness of the proposed work. The

response is adequate to justify the work proposed. A review of the basin’s proposals as a

whole package was recommended by the ISRP and is reiterated in light of confusion over

this project.

ProjectID: 9404900

Improve The Kootenai River Ecosystem

Kootenai Tribe of Idaho

Short Description: Identify best management options in order to enhance the aquatic

ecosystem and recover native populations of white sturgeon, kokanee salmon, bull trout,

burbot, Westslope cutthroat trout and redband trout in the Kootenai River system.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $270,000 Sponsor Request: $300,000

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund at level recommended by CBFWA without objective 4. The response

adequately addresses the ISRP’s concerns. The sponsors have withdrawn objective 4

(fertilization study) from funding consideration, as recommended by the ISRP. Matters

of project focus are being addressed by the sponsor and other sponsors using the

Adaptive Environmental Assessment. The experimental use of egg hatching capsules

was well supported in the response. It is evident that there are contradictory thoughts

about effects of siltation in the river below Libby Dam, and these need testing.

ProjectID: 8806400

Kootenai River White Sturgeon Studies And Conservation Aquaculture

Kootenai Tribe of Idaho

Short Description: Prevent extinction, preserve existing gene pool, and begin rebuilding

healthy age classes of the endangered white sturgeon in the Kootenai River using

conservation aquaculture techniques with wild broodstock.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $1,150,202 Sponsor Request: $2750,202

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund in part. Fund the research component. Do not fund capital expenditures until

a comprehensive review of regionwide white sturgeon recovery efforts is complete.

Do not fund kokanee portion of the proposal, objective 4, because the scientific basis

for linking kokanee to white sturgeon is not justified.

The ISRP stands by its original recommendation. The answers to the specific ISRP

concerns do not justify capital expenditure. This project was recommended for partial

funding, pending a review of regionwide sturgeon recovery efforts. The PIs agree, and
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

60

provide specific responses to a number of issues raised in the ISRP review. Although the

responses are, for the most part, adequate, they do not provide a compelling argument

that the original ISRP recommendation was not a wise one.

ProjectID: 8806500

Kootenai River Fisheries Recovery Investigations

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Short Description: Determine status of Kootenai River white sturgeon (ESA), burbot (a

genetically distinct stock), whitefish, and bull and rainbow trout stocks in the Kootenai

River and effects of water fluctuations and ecosystem changes on these stocks.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $616,596 Sponsor Request: $616,596

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund in part. Do not fund hypotheses/objectives 3, 4, and 11; 3 and 11 are not

theoretically justified. The ISRP’s original recommendation to not fund hypothesis 2 is

now changed to a fund because the response adequately addressed the ISRP concerns,

although the response does not provide clarification of all the logic underlying the

hypothesis. Hypothesis 2 is for monitoring and evaluation of white sturgeon as related to

environmental conditions. This monitoring is needed to implement the Recovery Plan

and for adequate management by the Technical Management Team. It will also

contribute to long-term records for scientific studies. The responses justify this work,

especially at an exploratory level. Further coordination of all parties in the Kootenai

system still seems desirable to the reviewers.

Lower Snake Mainstem and Multi-subbasin

ProjectID: 9801003

Spawning distribution of Snake River fall chinook salmon

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Short Description: Monitor the spawning distribution of fall chinook salmon to determine

if supplemented yearling hatchery fish spawn where intended, and to document redd

distribution and collect information on the spawning distribution of subyearling releases

and natural f

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $177,666 Sponsor Request: $182,666 Umbrella: 20533,

20541

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The responses adequately address the ISRP concerns.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

61

ProjectID: 9700900

Evaluate Rebuilding The White Sturgeon Population In The Lower Snake Basin

Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program

Short Description: Evaluate the need for and identify potential measures to protect and

restore white sturgeon between Hells Canyon and Lower Granite dams to obtain a

sustainable annual harvest of white sturgeon.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: 409494 Sponsor Request: 419494

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund due to the important nature of the work and vulnerability of the population,

but the ISRP concerns from the original review remain. The responses and study

design are vague and do not inspire confidence that the project’s objectives can be met.

Idaho Supplementation Studies and Related Proposals

ProjectID: 9005500

Steelhead Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Short Description: Evaluate the feasibility of using artificial production to increase

natural steelhead populations and to collect life history, genetic, and disease data from

wild steelhead populations in Idaho.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $407,744 Sponsor Request: $560,744 Umbrella: 20534,

20535

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The sponsors adequately addressed the ISRP comments. The sponsor’s

Attachment 2 is very helpful. The project proposes genetic monitoring to see if genetic

change occurs in supplemented natural populations. With interbreeding, there will be

mixing of genetic material whether or not the monitoring program detects it. The

appropriate questions and the questions that will be asked even if they show some change

is - so what? Genetic assessment may prove valuable in tracking directions and amounts

of interactions, however, long-term evaluation should focus on life history traits that are

thought to be related to fitness and adaptation. Does supplementation cause a significant

loss of production from natural habitats? Is that loss related to the method of

supplementation? How much productivity loss in reproduction is likely in the long-term?

And, how much productivity loss is acceptable?
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

62

ProjectID: 9107300

Idaho Natural Production Monitoring And Evaluation

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Short Description: Improves adult-to-smolt and smolt-to-adult survival of chinook

salmon and steelhead. Identifies limiting factors and methods to improve survival.

Provides monitoring to determine the effectiveness of recovery actions and population

status.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $767,512 Sponsor Request: $767,512 Umbrella: 20535

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The response was excellent and makes it much clearer what the project is about,

what is taking place in it, what has been accomplished, and where it is going. The

response creates confidence in the capability of the project team. Parts of it could serve

as a model for future proposals.

However, the project still needs to undergo a programmatic review. The project should be

further assessed by independent reviewers to ensure its components form a coherent

package consistent with the program goal. The review should ensure that all components

are progressing via sound science. Reviewers trust that all parties involved in the project

(including the Council and independent biometricians) are discussing the variability of

estimated SARs and have an appreciation of the number of years of monitoring that may

be required to come up with usable results.

Lower Snake Captive Broodstock Proposals

ProjectID: 9703800

Preserve Listed Salmonid Stocks Gametes

Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program

Short Description: Establish a gene bank to preserve male gametes from listed steelhead

and chinook salmon conservation units that are at low levels of abundance and at high

risk of extirpation.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $185,122 Sponsor Request: $185,122 Umbrella: 20535,

20556

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund in part. The original June 15th ISRP recommendation stands. Do not fund

the portion to cryopreserve female genetic material as this part of the proposal is too

uncertain and experimental. The responses did not adequately address the ISRP

comments.

The original comments still stand: “An argument is included to justify work to determine

the genotype of each fish. The research team only needs to ensure that they adequately

represent the gene pool of what remains of a population in their samples. This is a

statistical problem; genotypes are not necessary.”
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

63

The authors of this proposal intend to “manage” the project, which is in large part to take

place at the University of Idaho and Washington State University. These institutions will

be freezing and maintaining the sperm samples. A researcher from the University will

also be funded from the project to pursue experiments directed to exploration of

possibilities for preserving embryos. This project and the captive brood project should be

part of the same program, or at least closely managed as parts of a single program. The

captive brood program cannot possibly protect the genetic diversity present in the

Columbia Basin, nor can it protect the structure even of the populations taken under

culture for extended periods. The cryopreservation project should get samples to

represent the populations under the captive brood program, but its primary thrust should

be to obtain samples to represent all sub-populations of the basin’s metapopulations.

Small sub-populations are at greatest risk in the basin and they are likely a major source

of gene diversity.

The genetic manipulation (selected matings) described in the proposal should be

abandoned. Matings strategies should provide as close to random mating as possible.

Work to preserve embryos should be proposed as a separate project by the principal

investigator actually doing the work. The proposal should carefully outline past trials and

summarize present knowledge. It should provide details of experimental methods. Such

work has been going on for many years without success, so the funding agency should be

prepared to either fund specific experiments with completion dates or be prepared to

continue the funding indefinitely.

The proposal does not present a convincing argument that the DNA genotyping is

necessary to meet project goals.

The objective of this project is to provide an additional safeguard against extinction. The

strategy should be to gain representative samples of salmonid gene diversity present in

the basin. Sampling should account for fact that salmonids occur in metapopulations

(relatively large populations comprised of sub-populations). The proposal does little to

convince a reader that sampling needs have been considered in detail and within the

context of the structure of these populations.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

64

Clearwater

ProjectID: 20157

Gas Bubble Trauma Monitoring in the Clearwater, ID

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Short Description: To monitor gas bubble trauma in resident fish during period of flow

augmentation releases from Dworshak Reservoir in the North Fork Clearwater River and

Clearwater River below Dworshak Dam.

CBFWA Rec.: $59,000 Sponsor Request: $45,117

ISRP Response Evaluation:

This proposal was a late submittal and was not reviewed in the ISRP’s initial proposal

review for the June 15 report. However, the Council requested that it be reviewed in the

Response Review. The ISRP recommendation follows.

Fund. Address ISRP comments in BPA funding process.

Comments: The ISRP understands that this monitoring is required by the Idaho Division

of Environmental Quality as one of the conditions of their waver of dissolved gas

standards, allowing 120% saturation during the spring outmigration of juvenile salmon.

If the Corps of Engineers is to comply with NMFS Biological Opinion and provide spill

at Dworshak Dam, then the waiver is required and monitoring is required pursuant to the

waiver. However, there are several important pieces missing from the proposal.

Primary concerns.

A. Regardless of whether a legal requirement for monitoring may exist, this proposal

does not adequately convince the reviewers that a problem exists. Can the level of gas be

correlated with the incidence of gas bubble trauma after four years? If not, how much

longer will it be necessary to study the problem? A progress report consists of providing

a range of percentages of resident fish showing gas bubble trauma. The range is .2% to

1.02% over a five-year period. Would it be reasonable for the investigators, at some

point in time, to propose that such monitoring be discontinued, on the basis of the results

over a sufficiently long period that show no adverse effects of 120% dissolved gas? Or

perhaps the sampling frequency could be reduced?

B. The method that will be used to determine the degree of dissolved gas bubble trauma

in fish sampled is not adequately described. Reviewers understand that there is (more or

less) a standard method that is usually employed, and that the proposal indicates that fish

will be examined for exopthalmia and macroscopic bubbles in fins and on body surfaces.

However, is there a rating factor that is used, depending upon the relative severity of the

trauma expected from what is observed, or is the criterion simply yes or no, present or

absent.

In addition, it is not clear that gas bubble trauma will be monitored during periods of no

flow augmentation. Do dissolved gas levels exceed 110% at times other than flow

augmentation? Graphs of dissolved gas levels for a high water year and a low water year
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

65

at different points downstream would be helpful to understand the extent of the problem.

Periods of flow augmentation could be indicated.

C. There is no indication that the data are stored in a database or are otherwise available

electronically.

The sponsors need to develop testable hypotheses and plans for making results available

to the scientific community.

Other questions and comments which should be addressed.

1. Accomplishments should be stated in terms of information gained about gas bubble

trauma and dissolved gas levels, not number of fish evaluated.

2. Is there evidence or references to the literature to support that exceeding the dissolved

gas level standard of 110% causes problems to resident aquatic life?

3. What is the effect of high gas levels on invertebrates and other species besides fish?

The food chain for fish? Are fish the most sensitive indicator of problems?

4. Using the binomial distribution, the upper limit of a 95% confidence interval is about

5% if the incidence of gas bubble trauma is 1% and n = 100 fish are examined. What is

the precision of estimates realized in past studies? What is the precision for incidence of

gas bubble trauma in species other than trout? What level of precision is necessary to

satisfy the DEQ requirement that there be monitoring?

ProjectID: 8335000

Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery

Nez Perce Tribe

Short Description: Implement construction of Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery

supplementation program to assist in the recovery and restoration of non-listed spring

chinook and coho salmon and ESA listed Snake River fall chinook in the Clearwater

subbasin.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $14,590,000 Sponsor Request: $20,188,949 Umbrella: 20534

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Do not fund. The response did not adequately address the ISRP’s concerns in its original

review and recommendations.

This project focuses on a largely untested concept on too large a scale. Over the last

decade, the Basin has entered into 3 substantial programs that were intended to serve as

experimental tests of supplementation (NEOH, Idaho, and Yakima projects); but have not

yet had time to yield reliable findings. The scientific foundation for the NPT large-scale

project has therefore, not been provided. The proposed activities should more directly

address or at least circumvent limiting factors to salmon production.

According to instructions from Congress, the ISRP is required to assess projects in this

review for their scientific validity. This is a well-written document, but it has little to do

with science. Many of the assertedly “innovative” approaches have not been proven to

yield greater survival of released fish than standard practice. Project advocates also claim

that they will not impact populations in nature by keeping within natural “carrying
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

66

capacities.” Carrying capacity has proven difficult to measure and altering density at any

population level with propagated fish will no doubt influence the population in nature.

On the positive side, it appears the sponsors have undertaken surveys to determine

carrying capacity and appear to be undertaking habitat improvement projects to absorb

the hatchery-produced fish.

ISRP Specific Comments

On the NPT response to ISRP comment that the proposal does not establish that the

proposed activities are likely to result in benefits to fish and wildlife: NPT asserts that

the proposal “establishes” that certain numbers of naturally spawning chinook salmon

will result from the project, however, the figures presented in the proposal (p 20) are

clearly stated as “predictions.” Predictions can establish estimates and objectives, but

cannot establish results. For estimates, the uncertainty involved should be indicated. The

proposal gave no indication of the uncertainty of the predictions, and no statistical basis

was presented for judging how accurate and precise the predictions might be. Some

modeling was summarized, but whatever variabilities of data and hence output were

considered were not incorporated in the summary.

On the NPT response to ISRP comment that the proposed activities are likely to cause

problems for wild fish and other biota: NPT invokes the FEIS noting the previous review

process from BPA and other interested parties. However, any potential adverse effects

considered in the EIS were not mentioned in the proposal. Decision on starting new

supplementation programs for chinook and coho should await, among other things,

conclusive measurement of this potential source of damage to wild populations.

On the NPT response to ISRP comment that overcoming egg mortality in streams has not

been shown to increase fish populations: The response reiterates the over-150-year-old

rationale for artificial propagation in which results usually failed to meet expectations or

prove cost-effective. Producing “more viable” juveniles is cited as an objective, but their

lower fitness relative to naturally produced juveniles is not mentioned in the response.

In the original proposal, production of juveniles that are more fit than in conventional

hatcheries and at hoped-for cost reduction is stated as an experimental objective—but

such experiments are already being done on massive scales elsewhere in the basin. A

“higher return per spawner” is cited in the response, but the expected high cost per

returned adult is not mentioned. Hoped-for improved results from supplementation (as

opposed to conventional hatchery programs) is stated, but this should be considered in the

light of the three large supplementation experiments already underway in the basin

(Yakima Hatchery System, NE Oregon Hatchery System, and Idaho Supplementation

Program) which are intended to test supplementation’s utility, but have not yet had time

to yield reliable findings. Investments in further supplementation hatcheries should not

be made until positive biological and economic results of the existing major programs

become conclusively evident.

On the NPT response to ISRP comment that fish passage remains as an unaddressed

problem to the work: The proposal admits that its results will depend (in large measure)
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

67

on improved fish passage through the river system’s dams and reservoirs. Clearly,

programs that depend on fish passage improvements should not be undertaken until after

the necessary improvements have been made, or are at least scheduled to correspond with

the needs of juveniles and adults.

In this connection, the Council should consider that basic requirements for validity of any

biological-resource-improvement project are (1) that the conditions primarily responsible

for limiting the resource (the salmon population in this case) be identified, and (2) that it

be demonstrated that the proposed project will remove those limiting conditions or

circumvent them. The proposed project has not established that it will do either.

On the NPT response to ISRP comment that the proposal does not adequately describe

findings from referenced studies: The response begins to mention some of the topics in

the references but is in general unresponsive. The complaint that “summarizing the

findings would require considerable effort” stands out. Considerable effort is warranted

in view of the proposed project’s enormous scale and $20-million budget request.

On the NPT response to ISRP comment that a clear monitoring and evaluation plan is not

yet developed: NPT emphasis of the M&E plan by Steward (1966) is noted. We were not

provided with copies of that plan, and the proposal did not summarize its main features.

Much as we respect Dr. Steward, blanket references do not provide a sound basis for

assessing a proposal.

On NPT response 4 questioning the need for inclusion of published literature in the

review and background of the proposal: If the project is based on reasonable breadth and

depth of science, then there must be more than grey literature that pertains to it. The

point is, the parties involved should understand a reasonable amount of the existing, basic

science that supports or contradicts the plan. A larger, particularly ecological overview is

needed, not just the planning and planning studies of the sponsor and hired parties. As

essential as that planning is and as massive as it may have been, it and the proposed

operations must relate to underlying science in order to stay on track, and must show that

in order to be credible. Often, the proposal and responses try to claim such validity by

listing hoops the sponsor has jumped through but don’t describe (summarize) the content

involved in the hoops and don’t show what the scientific basis is.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

68

ProjectID: 8335003

Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Monitoring And Evaluation

Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program

Short Description:

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $992,847 Sponsor Request: $992,847 Umbrella: 8335000*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund in part. Those aspects of the project to collect baseline data needed to evaluate the

long-term goals of enhancement in the Clearwater Basin appear valuable; however, those

aspects that are dependent on the hatchery should be removed. In general, the responses

are satisfactory. They nicely explain what will be done and why.

ProjectID: 9501300

Nez Perce Tribe Resident Fish Substitution Program

Nez Perce Tribe

Short Description: Increase fish harvest opportunities to mitigate partially for

anadromous and resident fish losses incurred as a result of the construction and operation

of Dworshak Dam on the North Fork Clearwater River.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $750,000 Sponsor Request: $8,500,300

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Do not fund. The original proposal and response do not convince the reviewers that this

is a scientifically sound proposal. The basic idea is supportable both in the Fish and

Wildlife Program (the objective to use “substitute fisheries”) and scientifically, but the

proposal is not adequate as it stands. A simpler, lower-cost, more practical project could

be developed.

This pond fishery project is interesting and should be a relatively simple one to manage.

The responses (and the original proposal) point to some serious problems in management

that may be overcome by relatively simple, practical measures, such as watershed BMPs

and the fencing that the proposal mentions. If the BMPs are being followed to remedy

past watershed abuses (but exactly what sorts of abuses and BMPs are not described in

the proposal), they should probably be given several years to take full effect before

complicated in-pond management schemes are tried.

The proposal indicated that a good, practical watershed-analysis was probably done.

However, the proposal and responses did not describe the analysis or how the proposal’s

justification, objectives, and methods stem from it.

Additional consultation with specialists, including possibly an engineer and hydrologist,

as well as biologists, who have had success in fish-pond-ecosystem-management might

help identify remedies to some of the persistent problems identified in the proposal.

Improvements in managing existing ponds might be recommended, and mistakes in siting

and building future ponds might be avoided. Future proposals should provide maps that

show existing ponds, reservoirs, streams, etc. and proposed sites.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

69

More specifically, the sponsor states a laudable desire to “reduce the need and costs

associated with the continual stocking of ‘catchables.’” However, it may well be that the

proposed approach of studying in-pond conditions and trying different predator-prey

combinations is not the right tack to take until the BMPs are put into effect and the

watershed has had time to heal. The sponsor also wants an “ecosystem” approach, but

may be viewing this too narrowly (yet perhaps too complexly) as “maintaining the

equilibrium between predators and prey, and maximizing biotic interactions.” The

evident pond problems point to a need to focus more on the larger ecosystem of each

pond—its watershed.

The sponsor points to “high temperatures, low oxygen levels, elevated nutrient levels and

associated algal blooms during summer and oxygen depletions during winter.” These are

classic symptoms of watershed abuse (and perhaps secondarily a water supply and/or

siting and/or pond-basin-shape problem). The watershed (drainage basin) sources of

nutrients, which usually result from land-management problems; the water supply; and

the shape of the pond basin and dam/outlet structure usually govern fish-production

success in ponds, not finding some special mix of species. Even if a pond is thermally

more suitable for warmwater fishes than for trout, the warmwater species will also do

poorly if certain (often correctable) physical attributes of the pond ecosystem are wrong.

ProjectID: 9608600

Clearwater Subbasin Focus Watershed Program - Iscc

Idaho Soil Conservation Commission

Short Description: Coordinate multiple jurisdictions, agencies and private interests to

protect, restore, and enhance anadromous and resident fish, and wildlife in the Clearwater

River subbasin.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $89,450 Sponsor Request: $89,450 Umbrella: 20534

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund at base level to maintain operations until province review. The recommendation

of ISRP, in its June 15 FY2000 report, was to delay funding, until what is now being

termed a “province review” can be conducted. The panel was not persuaded by the

response that this recommendation should be changed to a recommendation for full

funding. This project, and its companion (9706000, to the Nez Perce Tribe) are designed

to provide some of the oversight and coordination function to a group of watershed

restoration projects. This function is badly needed, but has been weak to date, and the

project is in need of careful review and recommendations of the type that can only be

provided by a site review team. Furthermore, by the time of the province review, this

project needs to demonstrate that there is a coordinated biological monitoring plan in

place. The ISRP recognizes the urgency of the province review, and has recommended

that the Clearwater basin be among the first to be scheduled. Note that ISRP is now

recommending that the component restoration projects within the Clearwater basin on

which work is already underway be funded in the interim (which is a change for most

from a “delay funding” recommendation). See also project 9706000.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

70

ProjectID: 9706000

Clearwater Subbasin Focus Watershed Program - Npt

Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program

Short Description: Manage and Implement a comprehensive system to coordinate

multiple jurisdictions, agencies, and private landowners within the 1855 Nez Perce ceded

territory area. These efforts will protect, restore, and enhance anadromous fisheries

habitat.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $98,737 Sponsor Request: $98,737 Umbrella: 20534,

9608600*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund at base level to maintain operations until province review. The recommendation

of the ISRP, in its June 15 FY2000 report, was to delay funding, until what is now being

termed a “province review” can be conducted. The panel was not persuaded by the

response that this recommendation should be changed to a recommendation for full

funding.

This is the companion to project 9608600, and the recommendation is the same. The

projects are designed to provide some of the oversight and coordination function to a

group of watershed restoration projects. This function is badly needed, but has been

weak to date, and both projects are in need of careful review and recommendations of the

type that can only be provided by a site review team. Furthermore, by the time of the

province review, this project needs to demonstrate that there is a coordinated biological

monitoring plan in place. The ISRP recognizes the urgency of the province review, and

has recommended that the Clearwater basin be among the first to be scheduled. Note that

ISRP is now recommending that the component restoration projects within the

Clearwater basin on which work is already underway be funded in the interim (which is a

change for most from a “delay funding” recommendation).

ProjectID: 9901400

Restore Anadromous Fish Habitat In The Little Canyon Creek Subwatershed

Clearwater Focus Watershed Program - Idaho Soil Conservation Commission

Short Description: Restore steelhead trout habitat in Little Canyon Creek subwatershed

that are affected by upland agricultural land uses by implementing agricultural best

management practices and coordinating ISCC, NRCS, and BPA funding sources.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $196,855 Sponsor Request: $217,855 Umbrella: 9608600*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. See also projects 9608600 and 9706000.

The recommendation of ISRP, in its June 15 FY2000 report was to “delay funding” due

to concerns about whether a watershed assessment had previously been performed,

whether the work was properly coordinated, and whether there was sufficient biological
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

71

justification. The biological justification is still somewhat tenuous – essentially to the

effect of “if you build it they will come”. The question of biological

relevance/justification, however, is not particular to this project. The ISRP would like the

sponsors to consider the biological context, and a monitoring strategy, for this and its

companion watershed restoration projects within the Clearwater. However, it recognizes

that most of the work will of necessity be focused predominantly on physical mitigation

of habitat, via instream work, streamside vegetation, control of sediment production via

removal of roads, and the like. Furthermore, the sponsors’ response addresses most of the

deficiencies of the original proposal with respect to prioritization and scheduling of

project activities, and qualifications of personnel. ISRP therefore now recommends that

the project be funded.

ProjectID: 9901500

Restore Anadromous Fish Habitat In The Nichols Canyon Subwatershed

Clearwater Focus Watershed Program - Idaho Soil Conservation Commission

Short Description: Restore steelhead trout habitat in the Nichols Canyon subwatershed

affected by upland agricultural land uses by implementing agricultural best management

practices and coordinating ISCC, NRCS, and BPA funding sources.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $186,237 Sponsor Request: $211,237 Umbrella: 9608600*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. This is the companion to 9901400, and the response is identical. See also projects

9608600 and 9706000.

ProjectID: 9303501

Enhance Fish, Riparian, And Wildlife Habitat Within The Red River Watershed

Idaho County Soil and Water Conservation District

Short Description: Restore physical and biological processes to create a self-sustaining

river/meadow ecosystem using a holistic approach and adaptive management principles

to enhance fish, riparian, and wildlife habitat and water quality within the Red River

watershed.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $450,000 Sponsor Request: $550,000 Umbrella: 20534

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The sponsors provided a convincing response that addressed most of the ISRP

questions and comments very well. In addition, the response provides new information

that should have been included in the original proposal. Of particular importance is the

justification for the focus on particular stream reaches. The inclusion of maps and

drawings was very helpful. Reviewers note that this project is intended more to address

channel stabilization goals than fish restoration goals (see also projects 9608600 and

9706000).
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

72

ProjectID: 20084

Protect And Restore The North Lochsa Face Analysis Area Watersheds

Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program

Short Description: Protecting and restoring the North Lochsa Face Watershed to increase

anadromous fish populations is the overall goal of this project. We will achieve this

working within an overall watershed approach, based on comprehensive studies of the

analysis area.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $154,782 Sponsor Request: $204,782

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The proposers have provided most of the information that was missing in the

original proposal, especially prioritization and scheduling of project activities, and

qualifications of personnel. ISRP therefore now recommends that this project, and

companion projects within the Clearwater basin, be funded. See also programmatic

recommendations under projects 9706000 and 9608600.

ProjectID: 20086

Rehabilitate Newsome Creek - S.F. Clearwater River

Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program

Short Description: Protect and enhance Newsome Creek watershed for the benefit of

both resident and anadromous fish. This will be accomplished using an overall watershed

approach.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $301,689 Sponsor Request: $364,725

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. This is a companion to project 20084 and 20087; many of the original proposal

deficiencies were similar, as is the response. The major deficiencies are addressed in the

proposers’ response, and ISRP now recommends funding. See also programmatic

recommendation under projects 9706000 and 9608600.

ProjectID: 20087

Protect And Restore Mill Creek Watershed

Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program

Short Description: Protect and enhance critical riparian areas of the Mill Creek

Watershed to provide quality habitat for Chinook salmon, Steelhead trout, Bull trout, and

resident fish by working with an overall watershed approach.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $63,036 Sponsor Request: $63,036

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. This is a companion to projects 20084 and 20086; many of the original proposal

deficiencies were similar, as is the response. The major deficiencies are addressed in the

proposers’ response, and ISRP now recommends funding. However, the reviewers

continue to express concern about the budget, and urge Council to closely examine the

$63,000 budget. The work consists of developing a memorandum of understanding,
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

73

building 3-miles of fence, and developing a monitoring plan. Fencing cost, as stated in

the response, is to be $12,000 ($4,000 per mile), which is reasonable. However, $15,000

is budgeted for a (fencing?) subcontractor. Furthermore, on-site supervision and other

apparently modest tasks (MOU and monitoring plan) are to cost of about $32,000, which

seems excessive. See also programmatic recommendation under projects 9706000 and

9608600.

ProjectID: 9607708

Protect And Restore The Lolo Creek Watershed

Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program

Short Description: Protect, restore, and enhance the Lolo Creek Watershed to provide

quality habitat for Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, Steelhead trout, Pacific Lamprey, and

resident fish. This will be accomplished by working with an overall watershed approach.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $203,750 Sponsor Request: $203,750

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. In general the proposers’ responses adequately address the review comments.

However, justification for the vegetation planting tasks is inadequate, and that aspect of

the project should be deleted. In particular, the sponsor cites the 68-degree Fish and

Wildlife Program standard for maximum spawning-rearing water temperature, and

reports that the water exceeds that in summer (but not how often and how much). It is

then claimed that riparian planting will “immediately” reduce those temperatures—which

is clearly an exaggeration. The sponsor neglects to say why natural regeneration of

bushes—which will surely occur for free—will not be more cost-effective. Unnecessary

planting is commonly done in stream habitat restoration projects. Sponsor also refers to a

need for a vegetation filter strip to impede flow of nutrients and pesticides toward the

stream, but bushes and trees are much less effective in this function than are grasses,

sedges, forbs and so on, which usually develop very rapidly on their own. The sponsor

has provided no evidence that the proper vegetation cannot be expected to do the job as it

normally does within a few years once disturbance of the riparian corridor is controlled..

The funds that would be required for planting would probably have much greater streamrestorative effect if spent on control of riparian disturbance, e.g. by fencing or reducing

upland abuses. See also programmatic recommendations under projects 9706000 and

9608600.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

74

ProjectID: 9607709

Protect And Restore The Squaw To Papoose Creeks Watersheds

Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program

Short Description:

Protecting and restoring the Squaw to Papoose Creek Watersheds is the overall goal of

this project. We will achieve this working within an overall watershed approach, based

on a completed watershed anaylsis.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $303,607 Sponsor Request: $353,607

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The sponsors provided a convincing response that addressed the most important

ISRP questions and comments adequately. See also programmatic recommendations

under project 9706000.

ProjectID: 9607711

Restore Mccomas Meadow/ Meadow Creek Watershed

Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program

Short Description: Restore, enhance, and protect the diveristy of physical and biological

characteristics of Meadow Creek and associated wetland area to provide quality habitat

for Chinook salmon and Steelhead trout by working with an overall watershed approach.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $166,622 Sponsor Request: $166,622

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The sponsors provided a convincing response that addressed the most ISRP

questions and comments adequately. See also programmatic recommendation under

project 9706000.

ProjectID: 9901600

Protect & Restore Big Canyon Creek Watershed

Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program

Short Description: Restore Big Canyon Creek to a more healthy and productive system

which is capable of sustaining a self perpetuating population of anadromous and resident

fish.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $61,276 Sponsor Request: $61,276

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The responses are generally adequate. It seems a bit inconsistent that the stream

(apparently including the project area) is characterized as an “outstanding Steelhead

resource,” yet water temperature is viewed as such a critical limiting factor that artificial

planting must be done to “speed up the process of providing shade and large woody

debris inputs to the creek.” As for large woody debris, it will probably take many

decades for any significant amount of it to start being generated from the newly-protected

riparian area, whether or not planting is done, so a several-year delay to let natural

revegetation get started doing the job for free may not make much difference. Regarding
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

75

water temperature, if the stream is so outstanding for steelhead, temperature must not be

so limiting as to warrant trying to accelerate the natural revegetation (which sponsor says

will eventually happen) following control of disturbances within the riparian corridor.

Sponsor should quantify the present thermal regime and predict the likely reduction of

temperature that would occur as a result of artificial and natural revegetation, prior to

initiating revegetation attempts. Absent strong justification to the contrary, natural

revegetation should be the first choice before resorting to costly artificial revegetation.

This appears to be a very worthy project otherwise. See also programmatic

recommendations under projects 9706000 and 9608600.

ProjectID: 9901700

Protect & Restore Lapwai Creek

Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program

Short Description: Restore Lapwai Creek to a more healthy and productive system which

is capable of sustaining a self perpetuating population of anadromous and resident fish.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $61,276 Sponsor Request: $61,276

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The sponsors provided a convincing response that addressed the most important

ISRP questions and comments adequately. See also programmatic recommendations

under project 9706000 and 9608600.

ProjectID: 8740700

Dworshak Impacts/M&E And Biological/Integrated Rule Curves

Nez Perce Tribe

Short Description: Obtain and assess thermal, physical, chemical, primary production,

zooplankton and benthic data for formulating biological/integrated rule curves for

Dworshak Dam and Reservoir and for enhancing baseline data for monitoring and

evaluation.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $199,485 Sponsor Request: $199,485

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Do not fund. This was a poorly written proposal, and the response fails to allay the

reviewers’ concerns. Specifically, the ISRP review of the original proposal indicated

concern that the project team is not qualified to do the work. Furthermore, the project has

gone on for years (6.5 as indicated in the response) with few results. The statement

regarding qualifications in the response indicates that the Project Leader is a “Certified

Fisheries Scientist with course work and career development training in hydrology”.

This hardly meets the need of the project for expertise in hydrology and water resources

management. Furthermore, it does not appear that any of the university collaborators

have significant background in these fields, which is what the project demands. This

would seem an ideal project for a targeted solicitation – the problem is important, but the
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

76

project team is not up to the task. The project has gone on much too long, with too few

results, to justify further funding.

ProjectID: 9501600

Genetic Inventory Of Westslope Cuttthroat Trout In The N F Clearwater Basin

Nez Perce Tribe

Short Description: Document the extent of hybridization among native westslope

cuttthroat trout and introduced rainbow trout and evaluate the effects of Dworshak

resident fish mitigation on wild trout in the North Fork Clearwater basin.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $180,000 Sponsor Request: $200,000

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Do not fund. The response does not adequately address the ISRP concerns.

The original June 15 ISRP comments still stand: This project has been receiving funds

since 1995. They have found evidence of introgression, a finding that was a virtual

certainty given the presence of both species in the basin. There is little reason to continue

to seek evidence of introgression. If managers do not want introgression to occur, they

should halt the stocking programs immediately and hope that the cutthroat trout can reestablish themselves in the basin.

The CBFWA technical evaluation also noted that this proposal had outlived its usefulness

as a research activity and that continued work would be of questionable value to fish

Salmon River Subbasin

ProjectID: 9700100

Captive Rearing Initiative for Salmon River Chinook Salmon

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Short Description: Develop captive rearing techniques for chinook salmon and evaluate

the success and utility of captive rearing for maintaining stock structure and minimum

number of adult spawners in three drainages.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $546,385 Sponsor Request: $546,385 Umbrella: 20535

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The responses are to the point and adequately address the ISRP concerns. The

sponsor obviously took considerable pains to develop thoughtful responses.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

77

ProjectID: 9705700

Salmon River Production Program

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Short Description: Use instream, sidestream, and in-lake incubation and on-site rearing

methods that provide increased natural adaptation to the environment and higher quality

smolts than traditional production techniques to increase natural production.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $931,376 Sponsor Request: $931,376 Umbrella: 20535

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Do not fund. The response did not adequately address the ISRP concerns. The master

plan development and implementation are confusingly intertwined. Completion of the

master plan should precede implementation. However, here it appears implementation

precedes planning. There is not a sufficient monitoring and evaluation plan to test the

efficacy of the project.

Apparently confusion has been created because the work toward a broad-scale “Salmon

River Salmon and Steelhead Master Plan” (SRSSMP) is mixed in with one of its

components, the narrower “Salmon River Production Program” (SRPP). Conducting the

two as separate projects would seem to be a better approach. The sponsor says its is now

at only the “first step of a detailed three-step process” that is required by the NPPC to

continue funding. The first step is to develop a Master Plan for the Salmon River Basin.

Such a plan does not presently exist, and will incorporate not only production actions, but

also harvest and habitat requirements. There is no other project in the NPPC Fish and

Wildlife Program to develop this master plan.” The Master Plan should be completed

before considering the SRPP. To launch into an SRPP without a complete plan would be

unwise.

June 15 ISRP Comment: This proposal requires greater detail and clearly stated

objectives with provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results.

Sponsor Response: “Detail is lacking because, as stated above (and as a recurring

response to the ISRP comments), the project is at the first phase – development of a

master plan for production (and related) actions in the Salmon River Subbasin. The

scrutiny from many entities that is part of master planning will force a high level of detail

to be developed during the FY 1999 funding, in preparation for initiation of

implementation in FY 2000.”

ISRP: Here again, the plan detail ought to be settled before starting the “production.”

Sponsor Response: “Objectives are clearly stated in sections 7 and 8e of the proposal:

redirecting artificial production efforts to recover declining wild fish populations;

constructing low-cost streamside incubation and rearing, acclimation, volitional release

and broodstock holding facilities; reforming existing hatchery programs and facilities in

the Salmon River; and providing fish culture education and training for SBT Tribal

Members as part of the federal government’s trust responsibility to treaty tribes.”

 ISRP: Objectives should be stated in terms of desired resource outcomes, not activities to

be performed.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

78

“Specific monitoring and evaluation parameters aimed at measuring whether biological

objectives are met are detailed in section 8f, including the number of eggs hatched,

number of fish released, survival at life stage, adult returns, and natural reproduction

success of returning adults.”

ISRP: The first two of these are within-hatchery results, not resource outcomes. The last

three correctly state intent to measure resource outcomes.

June 15 ISRP Comment/Question: Its content is directed toward developing a rather

unspecified method of artificial propagation and description is lacking of any results of

previous funding in 1996-98.

Sponsor Response: “BPA funding for this project started in May, 1998 (as stated in

section 8d) and was only approximately six months old when the FY 2000 proposal was

submitted. Results of previous production actions (since 1995, and limited to side-stream

incubation) that were funded through other sources is currently in final report

development.”

ISRP: This work probably should not have been done before there was a master plan.

June 15 ISRP Comment/Question: Except in describing other projects (Sec. 8c), it

addresses fishery resource problems only in the vaguest of terms.

Sponsor Response: “Sections 8a, 8b and 8e describe these problems – primarily, that

highly technical and quantity-oriented artificial production strategies and actions have not

successfully mitigated for losses of naturally-producing populations (the past and present

production programs in the upper Salmon River do not include the objectives of restoring

naturally-producing populations).”

ISRP: Sponsor not responsive to ISRP comment. Sponsor states problems with hatchery

systems. A responsive answer should identify the resource-limiting factor(s) of the

Columbia River system and what the proposed project can do to reduce or circumvent

one or more of those factors.

June 15 ISRP Comment/Question: Hatchbox technologies could be tested on a much

smaller scale.

Sponsor Response: “They have been. For example, the Oregon STEP program, the

Washington Remote Site Incubator projects, the California SASEP and Truckee River,

and projects in Wyoming (Green River and Snake River). The major passage migration

barriers present for Salmon River anadromous fish populations and resultant smolt-toadult survival rates cause the test of this technology in the Salmon River to be of a larger

nature than elsewhere. The urgent nature of salmon recovery in the Salmon River basin

precludes proceeding on a smaller scale. Knowing that salmon (including steelhead fry)

can be produced using low tech on-site incubation, but needing to work at a level of

production that will allow for evaluation beyond hatch rates and numbers of fry released.

Under the present conditions of high mortalities due to the disruption of migratory
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

79

corridors, adequate evaluation is not possible if the project is conducted on a small scale.

The program should expand to a level that will produce adequate numbers of fish to

provide for suitable evaluation.”

ISRP: Neither the proposal nor response establish the efficacy of the programs the

sponsor cites as examples. In general, hatch-box programs have not been very effective.

Perhaps only one genuine study was undertaken to test results. It was in the Oergon

STEP program. Results from the first 2 years showed no evidence of beneficial effect

from the hatch boxes. To be conclusive, that study should have continued for additional

years, but it did not. While salmon recovery in the Salmon River Basin does have

elements of urgency as the sponsor notes, the sponsor failed to establish how the

proposed project would remedy cause(s) of the fish population problem that exists.

“Disruption of migratory corridors” should be removed or significantly reduced before

production projects like the proposed one are undertaken,

June 15 ISRP Comment/Question: Stream-side incubators a) have received favorable

media attention and suggest increasing local awareness of the issue and b) have involved

many young people in the process, but their biological efficacy should be assessed and

compared with other options before the program is expanded.

Sponsor Response: “This issue, and the necessary comparisons of other alternatives, will

be an essential part of not only the master planning process, but also the NEPA and ESA

requirements under Step 2 of the NPPC process.”

ISRP: Then the master-planning process should be finished first.

June 15 ISRP Comment/Question: As it stands, the project is almost purely activityoriented rather than fishery-results-oriented, and thus appears to be busy work.

Sponsor Response: “The on-the-ground production activities (e.g., side-stream

incubation) that is occurring while the master plan, NEPA, ESA, and engineering design

and feasibility work is performed are activities that are 100% fish-resource oriented. The

SBT are strong proponents of learning while doing (just do it) rather than getting mired in

studies (analysis paralysis) of potential actions. Such studies are important to resolve

critical uncertainties if such uncertainties prevent initiation of actions, as is monitoring

and evaluation in order to adaptively manage. However, it is at least equally important to

the SBT initiate to actions to help prevent the imminent extinction of Snake River wild

anadromous fish populations.”

ISRP: Again, without the guidance of a Master Plan, the Sponsor is recommending “just

do it” activities that are not justified based on the results of the previous projects that

sponsor has mentioned as examples above.

June 15 ISRP Comment/Question: Nowhere in the proposal are any scientific principles

or theory stated.

Sponsor Response: “Principles and theories are stated in the document: Section 8b -

“highly technical production strategies have not successfully mitigated losses of natural
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

80

production;” Section 8d – “initiate low-cost, low-tech alternatives and improvements to

existing hatchery programs;” Section 8e – “Determine if significant adult returns and

successful natural reproduction to the natural environment occur by using this

technology;” Section 8e – “test whether low-tech artificial production methods can

increase egg-to-fry survival over natural in-gravel incubation while increasing production

from fry-to-adult compared to current hatchery strategies;” and, “utilize hatcheries to

return fish to the natural environment while maintaining harvest opportunities;” and,

Section 8f – “juvenile fish would be more naturally acclimated to their rearing

environment as a result of volitional releases...[and] providing a more natural rearing

environment is believed to increase survivals of smolt-to-adults relative to fish incubated,

hatched and reared in a traditional hatchery and transported to release sites.’”

ISRP: The response is mainly technique-oriented and does not speak to underlying

matters, such as limiting factors. The idea of producing juveniles more acclimated to the

rearing environment and providing for more natural rearing is intuitive and indeed, is a

goal of many artificial production programs in the basin, as well as the focus of the

NATURES approach. However, such a goal is unlikely to be achieved without rigorous

experimental designs and monitoring and evaluation protocols.

Review of this proposal and the ISRP’s recommendations on it have strong parallels to

our review of Project 9901900, Restore the Salmon River, in the Challis, ID area, to a

healthy condition. Both projects suffer from attempting to implement broadly-stated

recovery and restoration goals without benefit of having a technically-defensible master

plan in place. The ISRP is directed by Congress to evaluate proposals based on several

criteria, including varying levels of scientific accountability. The ISRP focuses primarily

on the scientific and technical merits of proposed projects. It goes against the ISRP’s

Congressionally-mandated directives and good scientific common sense to recommend

advancement of projects for funding that do not have a comprehensive plan (or its

equivalent) in place that define critical elements of project planning, experimental design,

and monitoring and evaluation.

ProjectID: 9604300

Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement Project

Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program

Short Description: Implement and monitor supplementation program to recover native

summer chinook salmon in Johnson Creek. Construct facilities for adult collection and

holding, NATURE's concept rearing, and smolt acclimation.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $2,800,000 Sponsor Request: $2,800,000 Umbrella: 20535

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The ISRP’s concerns regarding priority of the project in the Salmon River

subbasin was adequately addressed. The responses adequately identified and addressed

each ISRP comment.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

81

ProjectID: 9107100

Snake River Sockeye Salmon Habitat And Limnological Research

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Short Description: Increase carrying capacities of Snake River sockeye salmon rearing

lakes (Redfish, Pettit, and Alturas). Evaluate the effects of nutrient additions and fish

stocking on the lake's ecosystems.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: 427000 Sponsor Request: 438461 Umbrella: 20535

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The additional information provided by the project sponsor addressed the ISRP’s

concerns. Involvement of the TOC in oversight of the various sockeye projects helps

ensure integration of the various projects and provides a venue for examination of risks

associated with the overall program.

ProjectID: 9901900

Restore the Salmon River, in the Challis, ID area, to a healthy condition

Custer County Watershed Group

Short Description: Restore river corridor to a healthy condition by reestablishing riparian

vegetation and allowing the floodplain to become functional. Social and political factors

are being addressed through a county-based watershed group.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $50,000 Sponsor Request: $50,000

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Do not fund. The response did not address the ISRP’s original concerns.

On the ISRP Comment that the proposal falls short of establishing sound scientific

principles and demonstrating clear benefits to fish and wildlife, sponsor responded: “All

interim work to protect existing riparian habitat is being reviewed by NMFS, USFWS,

NRCS, Peter Goodwin, IDFG, USFS, BLM, Army Corp, Water Resources, etc. In other

words, adequate scientific review has been provided as this project has evolved.” While

this may be true, the proposal and the response failed to provide such information to the

ISRP. The proposal and response also failed to set forth any scientific principle for the

reviewers.

On the ISRP comment that the authors should make further efforts to interact with other

model watershed projects in the Lemhi, Pahsimeroi, and East Fork Salmon, and together

with collaborators identified in Section 9 could develop technically defensible

approaches, procedures and a viable proposal, the sponsor responded: “The technically

defensible plan talked about is being developed by the Corp of Engineers and Dr. Peter

Goodwin's grad students [etcetera].” Therefore, the plan has not yet been fully

developed. The plan should precede implementation.

Review of this proposal and the ISRP’s recommendations on it have strong parallels to

our review of Project 9705700, “Salmon River Production Program”. Both projects

suffer from attempting to implement broadly stated recovery and restoration goals

without benefit of having a technically-defensible master plan in place. The ISRP is
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

82

directed by Congress to evaluate proposals based on several criteria, including varying

levels of scientific and fiscal accountability. The ISRP focuses primarily on the scientific

and technical merits of proposed projects. It goes against the ISRP’s Congressionallymandated directives and good scientific common sense to recommend advancement of

projects for funding that do not have a master plan (or its equivalent) in place that define

critical elements of project planning, experimental design, and monitoring and

evaluation.

ProjectID: 9600700

Irrigation Diversion Consolidations & Water Conservation; Upper Salmon R

Lemhi County Soil & Water Conservation District

Short Description: Irrigation consolidation of gravity diversions 10 Acre Canal (S-13)

with the Pope Canal (S-14) and the Kane/Ramey Canal (S-12) with the Edwards Canal

(S-11). Construct new fish screens on S-14 and S-11.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $293,113 Sponsor Request: $753,816 Umbrella: 20535

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund. The responses adequately addressed the ISRP concerns.

Grande Ronde and Imnaha

ProjectID: 9800703

Facility O&M And Program M&E For Grande Ronde Spring Chinook Salmon

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Short Description: Develop, implement, and evaluate integrated conventional and captive

brood hatchery projects to prevent extinction, and stabilize populations of threatened

spring chinook salmon populations in the Grande Ronde River.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $489,000 Sponsor Request: $597,516 Umbrella: 20531,

20556*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Delay funding until the sponsor provides an adequate detailed study design to BPA

such as that the sponsors identify as being in their companion project 9801001. The

response focused on justifying the program, but that was not the ISRP’s primary concern.

This proposal received a generally positive review, but was lacking in adequate

presentation of many methods for collecting data, analyzing data, and drawing

conclusions about the progress and outcome of the project. Until that information is

presented, the project does not have a sound scientific monitoring and evaluation

program. The ISRP’s primary concern was with the study design, specifically data

collection and statistical methods, but the sponsor did not provide the information

requested. The proposers do state that they are following procedures in their companion

proposal 9801001. Thus, it should be straightforward for them to provide the information

needed to allow scientific evaluation of their methods and their monitoring protocols.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

83

However, much needed information has not been provided at all and some provided in

the response is not adequate. For instance, according to information provided to date,

procedures for evaluating the effects of the weir on fish migration are not quantitative,

and there is no evidence that they will provide reliable estimates.

Although it is obvious that the short-term costs of a captive broodstock program are

acceptable compared to the long-term costs of extinctions, loss of genetic diversity, and

reintroduction from other sources, the sponsors have not stated how they will address the

factors that are causing the decline and extirpation of spring chinook salmon in the

Grande Ronde River basin (e.g., passage mortality and harvest rates). Unless these

factors are identified and rectified, it is doubtful that any type of hatchery program will

have long-term success in the restoration of native anadromous fishes.

ProjectID: 8805301

Northeast Oregon Hatchery Master Plan

Nez Perce Tribe

Short Description: Plan and develop conservation production facilities in the Imnaha and

Grande Ronde rivers necessary to implement salmon recovery programs for native, ESA

listed, steelhead, spring and fall chinook and reintroduction of coho and sockeye salmon.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $1,217,017 Sponsor Request: $1,217,017 Umbrella: 20556*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

These two proposals, 8805301 and 8805305, are for participation in the same set of

programs by two groups. Their strengths and shortcomings are shared and we provide a

single response to the two.

Fund in part. Fund the spring chinook Grande Ronde and Imnaha objectives,

which involve some capital modifications to Lookingglass Hatchery. Do not fund

the reintroduction efforts or efforts to use local endangered stocks to support

harvest.

The response clarifies that part of the requested funding is needed to support the Grande

Ronde Endemic Spring Chinook Program, which was presented in several other

proposals and recommended by the ISRP as a reasonable test program for captive

broodstock approaches to conservation and remediation for threatened or endangered

native stocks.

The original proposals were criticized for failing to clearly develop a rationale for their

goals and objectives (many of the latter were in fact simply tasks, not biological

objectives) which were very broad and general. Most remain vaguely presented and

justified. Because alternatives to development of proposed facilities will be addressed in

the master plan document, it is impossible to evaluate the scientific merit of the various

alternatives until the document is available for review. The Fish and Wildlife Plan does

not constitute scientific justification for planning and development for coho and sockeye

salmon reintroduction and steelhead supplementation.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

84

Reviewers judged the combination of hatcheries intended to preserve native stocks with

supplementation for harvest to be scientifically unjustified and unsound. Current

scientific understanding would dictate that genetic conservation of stocks and mass

rearing to support harvest are incompatible goals. These stocks should not be used to

support harvest, but rather should be used to recover endangered stocks.

The proposed reintroduction efforts also are not scientifically justified, given the presence

of the other overriding limiting factors, which are acknowledged in the proposal to be

continuing problems. The respondents note that previous research suggests that the

prospect for successful introduction are good, but passage mortality and harvest rates

under current conditions are too high for natural production to be self-sustaining. This

information suggests that if the goal of the proposal is to implement salmon recovery, a

captive brood program will not be successful until the other critical factors affecting

salmon persistence are addressed. Stating that a study says that reintroduction has a good

chance of “working”, given continuing supplementation, does not remove this concern.

Further, the continuing weakness of native stocks in the rivers of concern is likely to be

worsened by increasing numbers of hatchery fish of other species.

ProjectID: 8805305

Northeast Oregon Hatcheries Planning And Implementation - Odfw

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Short Description: Work with comanagers to develop endemic broodstocks for

supplementation of spring chinook salmon in the Grande Ronde basin and continue

planning for additional anadromous salmonid enhancement programs in the Grande

Ronde, Imnaha, and WallaWalla basins.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $226,000 Sponsor Request: $660,422 Umbrella: 20512*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund in part. Fund the spring chinook Grande Ronde and Imnaha objectives, which

involve some capital modifications to Lookingglass Hatchery. Do not fund the

reintroduction efforts or efforts to use local endangered stocks to support harvest. See

project 8805301.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

85

Upper Snake above Hell's Canyon, Malheur, Owyhee

ProjectID: 20135

Consumptive Sturgeon Fishery-Hells Canyon And Oxbow Reservoirs

Nez Perce Tribe

Short Description: Provide fishery opportunities for white sturgeon in Oxbow and Hells

Canyon reservoirs to mitigate for loss of white sturgeon fisheries in Columbia and Snake

River basins due to hydropower development and operations.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $250,000 Sponsor Request: $250,000

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Do not fund. This proposal was deemed not scientifically sound and received a do not

fund recommendation in the initial proposal review. The proposal was criticized for lack

of presentation of adequate scientific rationale, calculations, and data to justify the

proposed work. The reviewers noted that the proposal states hypotheses, but not methods

for testing them, and the work is required to include monitoring and evaluation, but this is

not in place.

The responses from CBFWA and from the NPT do not address these concerns adequately

from the viewpoint of scientific soundness. There is not scientific justification for

initiating a sturgeon stocking program in the absence of a management plan (which is

stated to be developed) and in the absence of a sound data collection plan designed to test

hypotheses about how well the stocking program is meeting its biological goals and

avoiding generating unwanted damaging side effects.

Whether or not this is called a research proposal (the responses state that the work is

mitigation, not research), it must generate research-type data in order to have

scientifically acceptable monitoring and evaluation. The usefulness of data to test

hypotheses depends on having hypotheses, or questions, specified in advance so that the

appropriate data set is defined before collection. Further, often, pre-treatment (i.e. before

fish stocking), initial (i.e., time of first fish stocking), and continuing data are needed to

understand the outcome of work such as this; the design and sampling need to be planned

before the work is begun.

Similarly, sound application of science dictates that unwanted side effects would be

scoped in advance of beginning the stocking program and that this information would be

subject to outside review by other scientists. It is not scientifically adequate to plan to

raise and address these later. It is not adequate to assert that so few sturgeon are present

that an introduction program cannot harm them; what about other fish species and what

about other elements of the food chain. The response that full augmentation will be

delayed misses this essential point. Past manipulations of lake and riverine food chains

make clear that this extended food web analysis must by considered and that food web

responses must be monitored.

The response refers to the management plan in future tense. It sounds like funding for the

development of a management plan was received previously, and the plan was supposed
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

86

to be developed with IDFG an ODFW during FY 1999. When will it be completed? Why

isn’t it referenced or central details presented for scientific review? Additionally, a master

plan and NEPA documents are scheduled to be completed and approved prior to the

initiation of fish stocking. Without these documents, it is impossible to complete a

comprehensive review of the project. A decision concerning further funding and

implementation of the program should be contingent on a favorable scientific review of

the management plan, master plan, and NEPA documents.

The respondents’ claim that public review in the FWP amendment project provides

justification to the work, however, this does not supply information about scientific

soundness.

ProjectID: 9500600

Shoshone-Bannock/Shoshone Paiute Joint Culture Facility

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Short Description: Planning, development, and operation of a hatchery facility to provide

native trout for re-introduction of stocks affected by hybridization, habitat loss, and

exploitation on the Duck Valley and Fort Hall Reservations

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $282,621 Sponsor Request: $282,621

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Fund in part. Do not fund objectives 5-8. This proposal received a recommendation

for partial funding, with the hatchery component of the proposal not recommended for

funding. The reasons for the negative recommendation for the hatchery component

(hatchery development and stocking program) were lack of adequate background data on

status and trends of currently-present native stocks and lack of adequate consideration of

jeopardy to them from stocking with hatchery fish.

The respondents say that the work in objectives 1-4, which were approved for funding,

“will quantify and further elucidate the known need for production and re-introduction of

native Yellowstone cutthroat trout”. This statement lacks scientific justification and leads

one to question the overall scientific competency of the proposers. Although the work in

objectives 1-4 was judged by reviewers to be well-justified, of value to fish and wildlife,

and scientifically useful, it is disturbing to hear that the proposers already are sure what

they will find. This is not sound science. The initial proposal (and others from the Fort

Hall Reservation) report positive response of native stocks to on-going habitat

improvements. Clear justification for beginning stocking of hatchery fish, which might

compromise regeneration of existing stocks, is not established. It might eventually be,

but adequate data are lacking.

The respondents further state that reviewers do not understand that put-and-take fishery

development will surely relieve pressure on native stocks because they are “not a

fisheries manager on the Fort Hall Indian reservation”. This is not scientific justification,

but rather presentation of insiders’ knowledge or opinions as fact to be accepted on faith.

It does not pass scientific muster. The response also states that “monitoring would be
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

87

developed to quantify these effects” (i.e., those of put-and-take fisheries on fishing

pressure to native stocks), but monitoring and evaluation plans should be in place and

subject to review for scientific adequacy before beginning a stocking program.

Otherwise, it may be impossible to estimate its effects.

Completion of Objectives 1-4 will provide information needed to evaluate the need and

relevance of continuing with the remaining objectives. It is still unclear how the

development of a put-and-take hatchery program will enhance the persistence of native

Yellowstone cutthroat and redband trout. There is not adequate scientific justification in

the responses to recommend funding of objectives 5-8. Prior inclusion in the FWP

doesn’t necessarily address the questions of scientific merit.

ProjectID: 9106700

Idaho Water Rental: Resident Fish And Wildlife Impacts - Phase III

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Short Description: Quantify changes in resident fish habitat in the upper Snake River

basin resulting from the release of 427,000 acre-feet of water for anadromous fish flow

augmentation. Recommend release strategies to benefit weak, native resident fish

populations.

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $119,465 Sponsor Request: $119,465

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Do not fund. The initial proposal was not recommended, due to lack of a sound scientific

framework for addressing the subject of concern.

The responses do not direct the central scientific concerns of reviewers. The primary

argument the respondents offer is that the proposal is for evaluation, not research. This is

a meaningless distinction. Evaluation implies conclusions with some degree of

confidence, and that is a form of research. The responders state that they are not

designing an experiment with this project, but then go on to say that they are trying to

identify when and how to release flow augmentation water in such a way as to either

reduce negative impacts or improve habitat. This is an experiment. How would water

management activities be evaluated without testing hypotheses about alternative

treatments/effects? This is the crux of the issue.

In the absence of clear design and procedures for testing hypotheses, the “conclusions” of

the project would seem to be little more than, at best, descriptive natural history (which

might generate some good hypotheses), or, at worst, unwarranted individual opinion that

remains unchallenged by standards of statistical deduction. The responses suggest a

fundamental misunderstanding of how sound, scientifically supported conclusions are

drawn from data (observations). Inclusion of an idea in the Fish and Wildlife Program

document does not address the question of scientific soundness of that idea or of any

particular implementation of the idea.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

88

Averaging habitat measurements across reaches and months to obtain an estimate of

change in the quantity of habitat per reach per year will not account for variation in

habitat requirements related to individual fish species and life-history stages.

Is there any evidence that estimation of habitat changes will accurately or precisely

predict the effects of the flow augmentation on potamodromous fish populations in the

Upper Snake River basin? Regardless of how much information is gathered from

models, IFIM literature, and/or expert opinion, it will be impossible to realistically

ascertain these effects without some type of validation study that includes all of the

species and/or specific life-history stages that may be affected. An evaluation of habitat

without any population data has little scientific merit.

ProjectID: 9501500

Lake Billy Shaw Operations and Maintenance and Evaluation (O&M, M&E)

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation

Short Description:

CBFWA Funding Rec.: $221,550 Sponsor Request: $221,550 Umbrella: 20536*

ISRP Response Evaluation:

Delay funding until the proposers develop and present a scientifically justified plan

for development of Lake Billy Shaw as a fishery. The initial proposal received a Do

Not Fund recommendation from reviewers, due to lack of clear presentation or

justification of work to be done.

The responses address some of the concerns, but fail to address the most fundamental.

The response clarifies short-term tasks to be accomplished in developing and maintaining

the reservoir. However, the long-term intent of the project is to establish a fishery, with

the reservoir serving to host that fishery. The long-term goals of the project are not

adequately described, nor are methods for their accomplishment and evaluation given.

The response does not talk about fish or fish habitat, and gives no detailed discussion of

goals and plans for use of native or non-native fish or for how these plans might be

developed and judged. The response indicates that the proposers want to re-establish

native fish, but does not go on to develop this plan and relate it to the overall proposal.

To facilitate an evaluation of the effects of Lake Billy Shaw on native fish and wildlife

populations, monitoring should include protocols for the collection and analysis of data

on fish and wildlife populations and on habitat quality and quantity.
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

89

Index by Project ID

ProjectID Page ProjectID Page ProjectID Page

20019 32 9102900 30 9705700 77

20064 33 9106100 54 9706000 70

20065 32 9106700 87 9800100 28

20084 72 9107100 81 9800300 54

20086 72 9107300 62 9800703 82

20087 72 9204800 55 9800800 33

20121 33 9303501 71 9801003 60

20127 46 9303701 29 9801400 24

20131 39 9401001 58 9801600 37

20135 85 9402600 31 9801700 40

20138 43 9404900 59 9801800 40

20139 45 9500100 57 9801900 35

20157 64 9500600 86 9802400 36

8331900 26 9501100 53 9802800 37

8335000 65 9501300 68 9803400 49

8335003 68 9501500 88 9900300 34

8343500 43 9501600 76 9901100 46

8343600 44 9502800 50 9901200 49

8346700 58 9506325 48 9901400 70

8503800 51 9506425 48 9901500 71

8710001 46 9506700 56 9901600 74

8740100 26 9600600 27 9901700 75

8740700 75 9600700 82 9901900 81

8802200 44 9600800 28

8805301 83 9600801 28

8805302 43 9601700 28

8805305 84 9604000 50

8806400 59 9604300 80

8806500 60 9605300 39

8811525 47 9607708 73

8812025 47 9607709 74

8902700 44 9607711 74

8903500 41 9608600 69

9000500 42 9700100 76

9000501 45 9700200 29

9001800 52 9700900 61

9004400 56 9701325 48

9005500 61 9702400 30

9007800 29 9702600 22

9101901 57 9703800 62

9101904 58 9705100 49
ISRP FY2000 Response Review: Recommendations and Comments

90

________________________________________

________________________________________

w:\em\ww\isrp\1 final isrp reports\isrp 1999-4resp~rev.doc