ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 5 April 1999

Council Document ISRP 2000-1

Review of the BPA Reimbursable Account Programs

in the Columbia River Basin as Requested

in the Senate-House Conference Report on FY99

Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill.

Report of the

Independent Scientific Review Panel

for the Northwest Power Planning Council

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 Letter/Memo 99-1

April 5, 1999

ISRP Reimbursable Program Review i 5 April 1999

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................. 1

II. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................. 2

III. SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................................... 4

APPENDIX A. BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF THE ASSIGNMENT ........................................................... 6

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................... 6

DIRECTION FROM CONGRESS.................................................................................................................................... 6

DIRECT-FUNDED AND REIMBURSABLE PROGRAMS................................................................................................... 7

SCOPE OF THE REVIEW.............................................................................................................................................. 9

STANDARDS/CRITERIA FOR THE ISRP’S REVIEW .................................................................................................... 11

ISRP APPROACH TO THE 1999 REVIEW.................................................................................................................. 12

APPENDIX B. MAJOR ELEMENTS IDENTIFIED IN THE REIMBURSABLE PROGRAM..................... 13

1. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ..................................................................................................................... 13

Columbia River Fisheries Mitigation Program ................................................................................................ 13

Fish and Wildlife Operations and Maintenance Budget ................................................................................... 17

2. LOWER SNAKE RIVER COMPENSATION PROGRAM............................................................................................. 20

3. LEAVENWORTH HATCHERY............................................................................................................................... 22

LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................................................ 26
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 1 5 April 1999

Review of the BPA Reimbursable Account Programs

in the Columbia River Basin as Requested

in the Senate-House Conference Report on FY99

Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill.

 

I. Introduction

In 1998, the U.S. Congress’ Senate-House conference report on the FY1999 Energy and Water

Development Appropriations bill included a new assignment for the Independent Scientific

Review Panel (ISRP or Panel) and the Northwest Power Planning Council (Council). The ISRP

was to review the fish and wildlife projects, programs, or measures included in federal agency

budgets that are reimbursed by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and to make funding

recommendations to Congress. The ISRP was directed to determine whether the proposals are

consistent with the scientific criteria in the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and

Conservation Act as amended in 1996, and provide a report to the Council by April 1 of each

year. The Council, in turn, must report to the Congress annually by May 15.

The ISRP was constrained in this first year review of the reimbursable program by the lack of

lead time for the review and by an already ambitious work schedule from January to June 1999

through our ongoing commitment to review the direct-funded program (mandated by the 1996

amendment to the Power Act). Consequently, our 1999 review is limited to a description of the

program elements and recommendations to reschedule and improve the review for the next year.

To accomplish those two tasks, we relied on help from Council staff, Council briefing documents,

and on recent assessments of various program elements by other review groups including the

Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB). For this year, we decided to define the scope of

the new directive—what constitutes the reimbursable program—and develop an approach to the

review that will yield a thorough scientific evaluation without compromising the ISRP’s other

assignments. In addition, key programs that will be evaluated in subsequent years are described.

For this report we have adopted the term “Letter/Memo”, which has been used in the past by the

ISAB for reports to administrators with a low level of detail where time for preparation was short.
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 2 5 April 1999

We have attached Appendix A, which provides more information on the basis for the ISRP

assignment, and Appendix B, which provides some preliminary information on selected projects

we examined as an exercise to help define the scope of the assignment.

A first task of this year’s ISRP review has been to clarify distinctions between the “reimbursable”

and direct-funded accounts in the overall fish and wildlife funding from BPA and to identify the

specific reimbursable accounts that could be scientifically reviewed. The distinction between

direct-funded and reimbursable projects proved to be unclear. The reimbursable category

contained projects with several distinct legislative histories and in some cases funding has shifted

in recent years between direct and reimbursable accounts. Thus, this initial fact-gathering about

what constitutes the reimbursable accounts has been a major task in itself (aided greatly by

Council staff 1

), and has consumed much of the allotted time. The complexity of the situation is

illustrated by Figure 1 (page 5).

There are four major components of the reimbursable program that we have identified at this

time:

1) Columbia River Fisheries Mitigation Program (Corps of Engineers)

2) Fish and Wildlife Operations and Maintenance Budget (Corps of Engineers)

3) Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and

4) Leavenworth Hatchery (Bureau of Reclamation).

The first component has already been reviewed by the Independent Scientific Advisory Board,

and a brief summary of that review is included in this report in Appendix A.

II. Conclusions and Recommendations

We concluded that research and other projects funded under the reimbursable program should, as

much as possible, be reviewed using the same criteria and specifications used by ISRP to review

the direct program. Specifically, formats for project proposals should be consistent with those

used in the direct program. Because they are not now similar, it will be important for the agencies,

BPA, and the Council to develop such commonality.

 

1

 We acknowledge with appreciation the assistance of personnel of the Corps of Engineers, Witt Anderson, Gary

Johnson, and Adele Merchant in compiling lists and descriptions of Corps projects related to fish mitigation.
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 3 5 April 1999

The ISRP recommends all projects included in the reimbursable review in

subsequent years should be evaluated using the criteria and specification

used by the ISRP to review the direct-funded programs. Specifically, project

proposal formats and other requirements should be made consistent with

those used for project review in the direct-funded programs.

Rationale — The ISRP currently lacks sufficient information to scientifically evaluate parts of the

reimbursable program. To remedy that problem, we recommend using the proposal format that

has been developed over the past three years for the direct-funded programs.

As indicated earlier, the schedule for this review is now concurrent with review of the directfunded program. The ISRP cannot do justice to both requests from Congress without rescheduling

one of the evaluations.

The ISRP recommends that a staggered annual schedule be agreed upon

among Congress, the Council and the ISRP such that the reimbursable

review occurs annually, in the autumn at a time when it does not conflict

with the annual review of the direct-funded process.

Rationale — the ISRP cannot conduct adequate reviews of the direct-funded and reimbursable

programs simultaneously.

Finally, we recognize from this first review that many components of the reimbursable program

are routine operations and maintenance (O&M) functions. Further analysis will be needed to

establish which components warrant scientific review.

The ISRP recommends that the responsible agencies (Corps of Engineers,

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Reclamation) provide an

inventory of research-related and O&M projects.

Rationale — Many programs funded through the reimbursable program are routine operations and

maintenance functions that are not amendable to scientific evaluation. To facilitate planning for

next year’s review, the ISRP needs a complete inventory of projects along with their purpose,

research, operation and maintenance, construction, etc.
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 4 5 April 1999

To effectively and efficiently complete the evaluation of the reimbursable program, the ISRP,

Council staff and agencies must develop a detailed operational plan. The plan needs to be

completed with enough lead time so everyone can execute their responsibilities effectively.

The ISRP recommends that a subcommittee of the panel work with

appropriate Council staff to develop a detailed plan for the review to be

carried out in 2000.

Rationale — Any evaluation of a program of the size and complexity of the reimbursable

programs requires careful planning and coordination. Such planning and coordination will be

needed before the ISRP can complete the review of reimbursable programs in FY 2000.

III. Summary

In summary, the ISRP has devoted this first report to a definition of the nature and status of the

reimbursable program and to how the ISRP can most effectively carry out the wishes of the

Congress for review of both the direct and reimbursable programs. The ISRP anticipates

substantive scientific review of the program in fall 1999.
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 5

Figure 1. ISRP Scope of Review – “Reimbursable” and “Direct” Program

Budget figures (BPA funding only) and numbers of projects (amenable to scientific review) included in the chart below are annual estimates based on FY99

appropriations, ongoing BPA agreements, and project submittals. Actual budgets and the number of funded projects vary from year to year.

_______________________________

 

w:\em\ww\isrp\reimburseable.doc

Columbia River

Fish Mitigation

Program

(CRFMP)

$95M

Capital Construction

and Research Projects

for Mainstem Dam

 Fish Passage

Improvements

USFWS

Lower Snake River

Compensation Plan

Fish Hatchery

Compensation

$12.5M

10+ Projects

(Congressionally

Appropriated)

Bureau

of

Reclamation

Leavenworth

Hatchery Complex

$1.8M

3 Projects

(Direct Funding

Agreement with

BPA)

Operation

&

Maintenance

$23.2M

Dam Facility O&M

Wildlife Mitigation

Hatcheries

(Direct Funding

Agreement with BPA)

US Army Corps of Engineers

($118.2M)

Anadromous Fish

Evaluation Program

(AFEP)

40+ Projects

($13M from CRFMP and O&M)

Reimbursable Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

$40M planning budget under MOA Columbia River Fish and

Wildlife Program

Two NMFS

Biological Opinions

FWS BiOp for Kootenai

Sturgeon

$100M – Direct

$27M – Capital Investments

400+ Proposals

BPA Reimbursable Program

ISRP April 1 Report

BPA Direct Program

ISRP June 15 Report

Congressionally

Appropriated

Capital Investment

Repayment
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 6

Appendix A. Background and Scope of the Assignment

Introduction

This appendix describes in detail Congress’ direction and how expenditures and operations

funded through Bonneville break into the direct-funded and reimbursable programs. We then

describe the scope of the 1999 review and the criteria we intend to use in the review.

Appendix B provides our descriptions of the reimbursable program’s major elements that we have

identified, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Lower Snake River Compensation Program,

and the Leavenworth Hatchery program.

Direction from Congress

In late 1998, Congress asked the ISRP and the Council to review the programs funded by BPA as

part of what is known as the “reimbursable” accounts and to make funding recommendations to

Congress. The request came in the Senate-House conference report on the FY99 Energy and

Water Development Appropriations bill:

“Independent Scientific Review Panel. The conferees recommend that, with regard

to Columbia Basin fish and wildlife projects, programs, or measures proposed in a

federal agency budget to be reimbursed by the Bonneville Power Administration,

the Independent Scientific Review Panel should annually review such proposals,

determine whether the proposals are consistent with the criteria in Section

4(h)(10)(D) of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act,

make any recommendations that the Panel considers appropriate to make the project,

program, or measure meet the criteria in that Section, and transmit the

recommendations to the Northwest Power Planning Council no later than April 1 of

each year. These Panel recommendations should be available to the public and

should be subject to public comment.

The conferees further recommend that the Panel recommendations should be fully

considered by the Northwest Power Planning Council when making its final
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 7 5 April 1999

recommendations of projects proposed by federal agencies and reimbursed by the

Bonneville Power Administration.

The conferees direct the Panel2 to submit its recommendations to the House and

Senate Committees on Appropriations and relevant authorizing Committees no later

than May 15 of each year. If the Northwest Power Planning Council does not

incorporate a recommendation of the Panel in its recommendations, the Council

should explain in writing its reasons for not accepting Panel recommendations.”

Conference Report H. Rept. 105-749 (September 25, 1998), at 112-13.

The reference to Section 4(h)(10)(D) of the Northwest Power Act is a reference to the 1996

amendment to the Power Act that established the ISRP and directed the panel and Council to

review implementation of the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program. Under that amendment the

ISRP and the Council have been reviewing projects proposed for direct-funding by BPA. The

Senate-House conference committee has now broadened that review to those parts of the

Bonneville fish and wildlife budget that consist of BPA reimbursements to the U.S. Treasury for

fish and wildlife appropriations, or that are still part of the “reimbursable” accounts at Bonneville,

even if now direct-funded.

Direct-funded and Reimbursable Programs

Under a 1995 budget agreement, memorialized in a 1996 Memorandum of Agreement regarding

BPA’s fish and wildlife budget,3 Bonneville agreed to the following fish and wildlife budget

 

2

 The Council staff has concluded that this reference to the “Panel” is an inadvertent error in the Conference Report.

Given the rest of the report language, it is the staff’s view that this sentence should refer to the Council submitting its

recommendations to the Congressional committees by May 15. The conferees appear to have been trying to mirror

the procedures in the 1996 Power Act amendment for review of direct program expenditures—a scientific panel

review, with Panel recommendations to the Council (by April 1), followed by public comment and a Council review,

followed by Council recommendations to the Congressional committees, by May 15 of each year. Thus, the report

language states in an earlier paragraph that the Panel is to transmit the Panel’s recommendations to the Council by

April 1. The Panel’s recommendations are to be fully considered by the Council when making “its final funding

recommendations.” And, if the Council does not incorporate a recommendation of the Panel in its recommendations,

the Council is to explain in writing the reasons for differing with the Panel. In this context, it makes sense that it

would be the Council submitting its recommendations to the Congressional committees by May 15, although the

Council will, of course, attach the Panel’s report and the Council’s written response to the Panel’s recommendations.

3

 More precisely, in 1995, Bonneville, NMFS and chairman of the Council negotiated, and the Clinton

Administration agreed to, a six-year (1996-2001) budget for Bonneville’s fish and wildlife funding,

memorialized in a letter from the head of the Office of Management and Budget. Toward the end of 1996,

Bonneville, Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, NMFS, and USFW developed and signed, in
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 8 5 April 1999

commitments through Fiscal Year 2001: First, Bonneville agreed to absorb the financial

consequences of the current set of system operations, whatever the cost (with a few exceptions).

These operations include implementing the Biological Opinions for Snake River salmon (National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)) and Kootenai sturgeon (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS)), as well as a few other system elements. The financial costs of these operations vary

dramatically depending on year-to-year water conditions, and consist of a combination of

foregone revenues, power purchases, and the estimated impacts on capacity and other system

benefits. For the purposes of the budget agreement, Bonneville estimated the average annual

financial impact to itself at $183 million. Because of high water conditions in the last few years,

the actual financial impact to Bonneville has been substantially less.

Second, Bonneville agreed to provide an average of $252 million per year through fiscal year

2001 for actual expenditures in three categories:

1) Direct program expenditures — This category consists of direct expenditures by

Bonneville for projects related to the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program and the two

Biological Opinions, primarily habitat, production, mainstem monitoring, research and

coordination projects. The budget agreement expected this category to average $100

million per year. Obligations in this category have been as expected.

2) Capital investment repayments — (“direct” investments and “reimbursable”

investments) This budget category includes paying off the debt from direct capital

investments by Bonneville (mostly related to the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program,

such as the capital costs of new artificial production facilities) and from capital

investments made by Congressional appropriations (primarily for modifications to

mainstem dams by the Corps of Engineers) that Bonneville is obligated to reimburse to the

Treasury. Bonneville’s budget commitment was to average $112 million per year to cover

the repayment stream—the mortgage payment—for both past and expected direct and

reimbursable capital investments. The budget agreement assumed that the expected capital

repayment expenditures in this category would reflect, in part, a further investment by

Bonneville in direct capital during the life of the budget agreement of $27 million per

year, and that Congress would also make available $565 million in new capital

investments over the life of the agreement. Bonneville has made available the direct

 

consultation with the Council and the region’s Indian tribes, a Memorandum of Agreement for the

Bonneville Fish and Wildlife Budget to implement the less formal budget agreement.
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 9 5 April 1999

capital as expected, but Congress has not appropriated funds to the Corps of Engineers at

the expected level. This means Bonneville’s repayment obligation is not increasing as fast

as expected, and thus the agency will not average $112 million per year through the life of

the agreement.

3) Reimbursable operations and maintenance expenditures — This category consists of

Bonneville reimbursements to the Treasury for congressional appropriations for various

operations and maintenance expenditures, such as for the artificial production facilities of

the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan. The budget agreement expected that this

category would average $40 million per year over the life of the agreement.

The 1996 Amendment to the Power Act subjected Bonneville’s direct expenditures and direct

capital investments to independent scientific review. The conference report language now adds to

that review all proposals for reimbursable capital investments and reimbursable operations and

maintenance expenditures. However, there are other federal fish and wildlife investments in the

basin that are not subject to scientific review, for example, the Mitchell Act appropriation for

artificial production and irrigation diversion screens. Projects funded by the federal land

management agencies to improve fish and wildlife habitat is the other major category outside of

Bonneville's budget and thus outside the ISRP review process.

Scope of the Review

Bonneville now directly funds the operation and maintenance and other non-capital costs for fish

and wildlife facilities and activities of the Bureau of Reclamation (i.e., Leavenworth Hatchery)

and the Corps of Engineers (e.g., operation and maintenance of mainstem passage and

transportation activities, hatchery operations and maintenance, etc.). Formerly these activities

were funded through reimbursable appropriations, and they are still accounted for by Bonneville

in the reimbursable expenditures account. Although they are no longer “reimbursements” they

have not been shifted to the direct-funded program and they are not reviewed as part of the 1996

Power Act amendment project review process. The Council recommended that the ISRP’s review

include all of these expenditures.
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 10 5 April 1999

The ISRP’s reimbursable review includes the following programs and projects:

1) Columbia River Fisheries Mitigation Program (Corps of Engineers) — capital

investments in dam passage improvements on the lower Columbia and lower Snake dams

that are either in the implementation (capital construction) phase or the study/investigation

phase.

2) Fish and wildlife operations and maintenance budget (Corps of Engineers) —

a. research projects (including the Anadromous Fish Evaluation Program)

b. juvenile and adult passage facilities

c. juvenile transportation program

d. hatchery facilities funded by the Corps of Engineers and operated by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service or the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife:

(1) Dworshak National Fish Hatchery on the North Fork of the Clearwater River, as

partial mitigation for Dworshak Dam

(2) Bonneville and Spring Creek hatcheries in the Bonneville Dam area of the lower

Columbia, as partial mitigation for the John Day Dam

(3) Marion Forks, South Santiam, Leaburg, McKenzie, and Willamette hatcheries on

tributaries of the Willamette River, as partial mitigation for the various projects

in the Willamette

(4) Cole M. Rivers Hatchery on the Rogue River, as partial mitigation for Applegate

and Elk Creek dams on tributaries to the Rogue

e. wildlife mitigation expenses.

3) Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) — operation

and maintenance expenses for ten hatcheries and sixteen satellite facilities for adult

trapping and juvenile acclimation and release facilities on or for the lower Snake, Salmon,

Clearwater, Walla Walla, Grande Ronde, Imnaha, Tucannon, Touchet and Walla Walla

subbasins, as partial mitigation for the four lower Snake River dams.

4) Leavenworth Hatchery (Bureau of Reclamation) — operation and maintenance

expenditures for the Leavenworth Complex which is funded by the Bureau of Reclamation

but managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as partial mitigation for Grand Coulee

Dam.
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 11 5 April 1999

Standards/criteria for the ISRP’s Review

The conference report language ties the ISRP’s review of the reimbursable programs to the

criteria in the 1996 amendment to the Power Act. The report language calls on the panel to

“determine whether the proposals are consistent with the criteria in Section 4(h)(10)(D)” of the

Power Act and to recommend how “to make the project, program, or measure meet the criteria in

that Section.” The ISRP was directed to base its recommendations on a “determination that

projects: are based on sound science principles, benefit fish and wildlife, and have a clearly

defined objective and outcome with provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results.” These

will be the basic criteria for the panel’s review of the reimbursable budget items.

The same section of the Power Act further directs the ISRP “to adequately ensure that the list of

prioritized projects recommended is consistent with the Council’s program.” We have concluded

this criterion is not directly applicable to the reimbursable programs, because many of the projects

(e.g., the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan) have origins and sources of authority outside

the Power Act and the Council’s program. Obviously, there is a need to coordinate these projects.

Perhaps Congress is asking the ISRP to assess their consistency with the Council’s program.

The conference report language recommends that the ISRP make its recommendations on the

reimbursable projects to the Council by April 1. The Council is to make the ISRP’s

recommendations available to the public for review. The Council is also obligated to “fully

consider” the recommendations and to explain in writing, if the Council’s recommendations

disagree with those contained in the report. As stated earlier, this schedule is impossible to meet

this year, so the ISRP has developed a recommendation to revise the deadlines.

The ISRP undertook this review with an understanding that the primary objective in the region is

the restoration of a healthy ecosystem that supports increased abundance and productivity from

native fish (anadromous and resident) and wildlife populations in the Columbia Basin. This goal

is explicit in the priorities of the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program, Endangered Species Act

(ESA), as well as other major salmon restoration plans for the basin (ISAB1999a).
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 12 5 April 1999

ISRP Approach to the 1999 Review

The ISRP was appointed by the Council in December 1996 and began work in January 1997. It

presently consists of eleven members, seven of which are shared with the Independent Scientific

Advisory Board. In addition to a diversity of experience in fisheries, genetics, and ecology, ISRP

members have expertise in artificial production, wildlife, oceans, and natural resource economics.

The ISRP’s main task has been, and continues to be, a comprehensive review of the Northwest

Power Planning Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program (i.e., Bonneville’s direct-funded program).

The 1996 amendment to the Power Act calls for the ISRP to review funding allocations and

projects within the Council’s fish and wildlife program annually for four years starting in 1997.

Each year’s review is to be reported to the Council by June 15 before the Council adopts

prioritization recommendations. The majority of the work conducted by the ISRP in this review of

the direct-funded program occurs between January and June of each year due to the constraints of

Bonneville’s annual funding cycle. Review of the direct-funded program is a large task and the

ISRP members time and energy are taxed to complete the task on schedule. By necessity, this

obligation constrained the scope and depth of our 1999 review of the reimbursable program.

The ISRP recognizes that integrating the peer review process described in this report into the

reimbursable program, as well as other changes in the project funding process will not be fully

accomplished in this first year. The process of revising and reforming peer review in the basin

will extend over several years, in a cooperative, iterative and educational effort involving Council,

ISRP, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, other fish and wildlife

managers, BPA, and other interested non-governmental entities.
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 13 5 April 1999

Appendix B. Major Elements Identified in the Reimbursable Program

1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Columbia River Fisheries Mitigation Program

The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Columbia River Fisheries Mitigation Program –

capital investments in dam passage improvements on the lower Columbia and lower Snake river

dams that are either in the implementation (capital construction) phase or the study/investigation

phase.

In the Conference Report on the FY 1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act

(House Report 105-271), Congress asked the Council, with the assistance of the ISAB, to review

the Corps of Engineers’ Columbia River Fisheries Mitigation Program (CRFMP). The Council

approved a scope of work for the review based on regional comments received on a draft scoping

document. Policy issues were addressed by the Council, while identified technical issues were

addressed by the ISAB. Because of the large number of projects and the complexity of many, the

ISAB review focused on an evaluation of major fish passage strategies, as well as several

controversial projects. The controversial projects were identified by the System Configuration

Team (SCT) during their deliberations. The ISAB review focused on proposed passage

improvements rather than those already underway, including: 1) Bonneville Dam juvenile bypass

improvements, specifically relocation of the bypass outfall, 2) installation of extended-length

screens at John Day Dam, and 3) testing and development of surface bypass for juvenile salmon

at Lower Granite Dam. In addition the ISAB provided reviews of : 4) the problem of gas

supersaturation, and 5) adult passage at the mainstem dams.

Once the ISAB completed reports on the five specific subjects, it developed broad

recommendations in an overview report. In that report, the ISAB identified two principles that

should guide decisions to modify dams to improve passage for salmon: 1) Protect biodiversity by

designing passage solutions to benefit the full range of species, stocks and life history types in the

river; and 2) favor passage solutions that best fit natural behavior patterns of salmon and river

processes the fish encounter (ISAB 1999a). The ISAB concluded that, given these two principles,

multiple passage solutions probably will be required and are not necessarily duplicative. The
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 14 5 April 1999

ISAB also recommended that the Corps of Engineers develop a process to inquire whether

existing, proposed or alternative improvements in passage technologies are consistent with these

principles.

In the development of passage solutions, the ISAB advised that explicit statements of biological

premises and hypotheses such as those that formed a basis for evaluation of the prototype surface

bypass facility at Lower Granite Dam was a valuable aid for efficient development of bypass

solutions, and is a procedure that should be widely adopted.

In addition, the ISAB developed a list of guidelines to serve as a test of biological effectiveness

for proposed actions. The test would consider whether the action is: 1) Consistent with the

behavior and ecology of the species; 2) supportive of the physical and biological conditions

necessary for successful completion of normal life history requirements for the species; 3) based

upon a valid scientific rationale; and 4) consistent with an ecosystem approach in protecting other

species. The Council staff concurred with the ISAB’s approach and recommendations, and

recommended that the Corps and others revise their decision making processes and criteria to be

consistent with the principles, guidelines and ecosystem perspective set out by the ISAB (NPPC

1999). NPPC (1999) also instructed the ISRP to apply the principles and guidelines from the

ISAB to its review of the projects in the reimbursable portion of the BPA fish and wildlife budget.

Brief reviews of the ISAB reports are provided below, as illustrations of how the principles can

affect decisions on bypass solutions. Locations of the dams are shown in Figure 2.
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 15 5 April 1999

Figure 2. Major features of the Columbia River Basin hydropower system including tributaries

and dams. There is no fish passage upstream of Chief Joseph and Hells Canyon dams.

(Source: USFWS 1998)

LEGEND

BON=Bonneville WA=Wanapum GRC=Grand Coulee HC=Hells Canyon

TD=The Dalles RI=Rock Island IH=Ice Harbor OX=Oxbow

JD=John Day RR=Rocky Reach LM=L. Monumental BR=Brownlee

MCN=McNary WEL=Wells LGO=Little Goose

PR=Priest Rapids CJ=Chief Joseph LG=L. Granite

1) Juvenile Salmon Bypass Improvements at Bonneville Dam — The SCT was not able to

agree on a proposal to relocate the juvenile bypass outfall at Bonneville Dam. The ISAB

was asked to review the proposal and make a recommendation. The ISAB found that

juvenile salmon were subjected to high mortality at the outfall of the bypass at Bonneville

Dam due to its location (ISAB 1998a). The ISAB recommended proceeding with

relocation. The basic problem with the present outfall is that it concentrates juvenile

salmon in an area of low flow velocities that favor predation.
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 16 5 April 1999

2) Installation of Extended-Length Intake Screens at John Day Dam — The ISAB found

that even if expected improvements in fish guidance were to be realized, the extendedlength intake screens would continue to be selective toward certain species and life history

types of salmon. The lamprey, a species of interest to the treaty tribes, are not effectively

bypassed by intake screens (ISAB 1998a). Because of concerns about effects on

biodiversity, coupled with the lack of documentation of expected improvements in fish

guidance, the ISAB recommended against installation of extended-length screens at John

Day Dam.

3) Surface Bypass System at Lower Granite Dam — The ISAB concluded that, given the

demonstrated selectivity of intake screens and the potential effects on biodiversity, it is

time to find an adjunct to that technology. Surface collection continues to show promise as

a bypass measure for juvenile salmon (ISAB 1998b). Surface bypass utilizes a natural

tendency of juveniles to migrate in the upper layer of the water column.

4) Dissolved Gas Abatement Program — The goal should be to use the most cost effective

manner possible to reduce systemwide total dissolved gas to levels safe for all aquatic life

(ISAB 1998c). Spill levels that produce supersaturation are not limited to the spill

program that is designed as a bypass measure for juvenile salmon. Therefore, the Corps

should proceed immediately with known methods, such as completing installation of fliplip spillways to prepare for high flow events that will require spill. Enough is known to

proceed without additional biological studies, at this time.

5) Adult Fish Passage — The ISAB concluded that problems with adult passage have not

been adequately dealt with (ISAB 1999a). Many questions remain about the effects of

delay or extra energy expenditure en route upstream.
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 17 5 April 1999

Fish and Wildlife Operations and Maintenance Budget

Corps of Engineers’ fish and wildlife operations and maintenance budget which supports

research projects (including the Anadromous Fish Evaluation Program), juvenile and adult

passage facilities, juvenile transportation program, hatchery facilities (funded by the Corps of

Engineers and operated by the USFWS or ODFW), and wildlife mitigation expenses.4

The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northwestern Division, has sponsored biological studies

continuously since 1952 to better understand and improve anadromous fish passage conditions at

its multi-purpose projects on the Columbia and lower Snake Rivers. These monitoring, research,

and evaluation studies have been managed under the Anadromous Fish Evaluation Program

(AFEP). The AFEP is coordinated with federal, state, and tribal fish agencies who provide both

technical and policy level input to the Corps on study objectives, experimental design, and

methodologies. A few AFEP studies are now funded from project operations and maintenance

accounts. Most studies are integral components of elements of the Columbia River Fish

Mitigation project (CRFM), a large Corps construction account that funds numerous fish passage

improvements at Columbia and Snake River mainstem dams.

Historically, Corps of Engineers funded studies have focussed on project-specific adult and

juvenile fish passage issues. Most of the passage facilities and operations on the river have been

developed and refined based on results of these studies. These include adult fish ladders and

collection channels, juvenile bypasses with turbine intake screens, the juvenile fish transportation

program, spill for juvenile fish passage, and a comprehensive set of project/hydrosystem

operating criteria.

According to Corps’ criteria, the CRFM includes over 40 studies costing about $13 million in

1999, including research contracts, tags, project services and administrative support. These

studies evaluate passage success, survival, and fish condition for surface bypass technologies,

transportation, conventional bypass systems, spill, total dissolved gas, drawdown, adult

migration/passage, in-river passage, and turbine passage. Most are developed as integral

components of larger study and evaluation features of the CRFM related to new passage

technologies, while some evaluate existing project features. In addressing the assignment from

 

4

 Both the hatchery component and the wildlife component are large and complex programs to analyze. There often

are joint contributions to their support. At this time, we do not have an adequate understanding of their scope within

the reimbursable program. We anticipate that the ISRP review of direct funding will help clarify the matter.
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 18 5 April 1999

Congress, the ISRP attempted to identify studies that might benefit from an ISRP review. The

approach we used, to obtain a preliminary idea, was to examine the abstracts of project reports

included in the Corps’ Annual Research Review for 1998 (Corps of Engineers 1998), and the

project descriptions provided in the FY 2000 Proposals for Systemwide, Mainstem, Lower

Columbia mainstem, and mid-Columbia mainstem categories. The results are shown in Figure 3.

This provides a preliminary description of the boundaries that might encompass the ISRP review,

based on our judgement at this time. Closer inspection will no doubt reduce the number

somewhat, as overlaps among projects are identified, and routine monitoring activities are

eliminated from the review.
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 19

Figure 3. Comparison of FWP and Corps Mainstem Columbia River Research 

0

5

10

15

20

25

Juvenile Passage

Predation (Fish)

Predation (Birds)

Adult Migration

Lamprey Research

Dissolved Gas 

Transportation

Monitoring Databases

Dam modification, PATH

Mainstem spawning

Analyze Monitoring Data

Temperature

Disease 

Food

Ocean, Estuarine

Smolt Monitoring

Genetics

Supplementation

Ecosystem

White Sturgeon

Harvest

Resident Fish

Number of Projects

Classification of Corps Reimbursable Research projects based on abstracts in 1998 Annual Research Review, Oct. 13-15, 1998

Classification of FY00 proposals in FWP for Systemwide, Mainstem, Lower Columbia mainstem, and Mid Columbia mainstem categories (does

not include wildlife, hatcheries, subbasin, administrative, and law enforcement proposals). 
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 20 5 April 1999

2. Lower Snake River Compensation Program

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Lower Snake River Compensation Program (LSRCP)

oversees operation and maintenance expenses for ten hatcheries and sixteen satellite facilities.

The projects include adult trapping and juvenile acclimation and release facilities on/or for the

lower Snake, Salmon, Clearwater, Walla Walla, Grande Ronde, Imnaha, Tucannon, Touchet and

Walla Walla subbasins. The LSRCP was authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of

1976, Public Law (P.L.) 94-587, to mitigate and compensate for fish and wildlife resource losses

caused by the construction and operation of Ice Harbor (1961), Lower Monumental (1969), Little

Goose (1970), and Lower Granite (1975) dams (Figure 1; USFWS 1998).

The basis for the LSRCP production targets was an estimated turbine mortality of 15% of the

emigrating smolts at each of the four Lower Snake dams (Figure 4). The cumulative losses were

estimated to be 48% of the pre-dam Snake river chinook salmon and steelhead runs (Table 1).

The LSRCP called for the construction of hatcheries to produce sufficient juveniles to

compensate for that loss. Compensation focused on replacing adult spring/summer and fall

chinook and summer steelhead. However, there were other anadromous species (coho and

sockeye) still returning to the basin at the time of dam construction.5 Congress authorized the

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

cost of the program from revenues generated by power sales, and the USFWS or NMFS to

administer the program.

Figure 4. Order of smolt losses at the four lower Snake River dams.

 

5

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

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

focusing on captive brood technology has kept Snake Basin from virtual extinction, but perhaps not functional

extinction. The extent of adult sockeye returns, if any, over the next few years to the Snake basin will probably

indicate the ultimate fate of that program.
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 21 5 April 1999

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

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

 Fall Spring/summer Steelhead

 chinook chinook trout

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

Adult losses attributed to 18,3003 58,700 55,100

the Lower Snake Projects2

 

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

3

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

adults is credited for those that spawned in the reach inundated by the reservoirs – that loss was direct and therefore added in

directly to compute the total loss.

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

the dams inundated about 140 miles of spawning habitat

In addition to the adult return goals identified in the compensation plan, the LSRCP also has

responsibilities to comply with the ESA and to meet tribal trust responsibilities. Under the ESA,

LSRCP actions are not to jeopardize listed species. Fish hatchery production has been adjusted

where appropriate to meet ESA requirements.

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

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

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

In FY 1998, 11.23 million salmon, steelhead and rainbow trout juveniles weighing 1.56 million

pounds were released from LSRCP facilities. The numbers, pounds of fish produced, release

sites, and sizes were adjusted in 1998 to reduce impacts on listed species.

Internal Reviews

The LSRCP has made a number of management changes over the years. After roughly a decade

of operation, the USFWS sponsored a program-level review in 1990 (Herrig 1990). In 1998, a
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 22 5 April 1999

second larger and more in-depth review was conducted by the USFWS in Boise, Idaho (USFWS

1998). Its goal (The Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Status Review Symposium) was to

inform the regional decision makers, public, and scientists to promote informed decisions on the

future program direction. During the symposium, LSRCP-funded fisheries scientists summarized

and addressed the status of their projects dealing with steelhead, spring and summer chinook, and

fall chinook. Two panels, one of seven independent scientists and another of seven stakeholders,

provided comments throughout and at the end of the review.

The LSRCP Hatchery Program and the LSRCP mitigation efforts have not been able to meet

their goals. As noted above, the original goal of the LSRCP was to compensate for the loss of

48% of the juveniles migrating downstream through the system; the other 52% of the run was

expected to be maintained with the mitigation modifications such as installation of turbine intake

screens, flip-lip spillway construction at the dams, barging/trucking smolts, and habitat

improvement work. Based on the 1998 Status Review assessments, participants concluded that

neither the (compensated) hatchery nor the naturally-spawning chinook populations have done as

well as expected. Many of the chinook programs are no longer production-oriented programs as

envisioned in the authorizing legislation, but rather are supplementation-oriented programs, due

to the depressed status of the donor stocks. Steelhead (compensated) hatchery populations have

done quite well in a number of years, whereas the naturally-spawning populations have

deteriorated to the point that all endemic populations in the Snake River basin are now listed

under the ESA. The returns remain well below pre-dam levels.

They noted that the continued precipitous decline of Snake basin chinook stocks, and the fear

that steelhead stocks are starting to mirror the chinook declines, has shifted some of the

responsibility, if not the focus, of the LSRCP to recovering natural populations, rather than

mitigating for adult salmon and steelhead losses and enhancing recreational fishing

opportunities.

3. Leavenworth Hatchery

Bureau of Reclamation’s Leavenworth Hatchery -- operation and maintenance

expenditures for facility funded by the Bureau but managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, as partial mitigation for Grand Coulee Dam

The ISRP will review the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery because the Bureau of

Reclamation receives funding from BPA’s reimbursable expenditure account. This reimbursable
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 23 5 April 1999

expenditure is set at $1,805,000 for FY 2000 under a direct-funding agreement with BPA.

Including BPA’s contribution, the current approved FY 2000 budget for the Leavenworth

National Fish Hatchery complex is $2,579,000. Apparently, the original operation and

maintenance estimates given to the Bureau of Reclamation and BPA were inadequate to meet the

base operation and maintenance needs of the Leavenworth Complex. Consequently, the Bureau

of Reclamation submitted a proposal for FY 2000 funding through the Columbia River Basin

Fish and Wildlife Program for $603,000. The ISRP and peer review groups are reviewing this

proposal along with the other 400 proposals submitted for funding through the fish and wildlife

program. Outyear cost for the Leavenworth complex are estimated at $5,184,717 in FY 2001;

$6,208,796 in FY 2002; $6,321,920 in FY 2003; and $4,609,937 in FY 2004.

The Leavenworth hatchery complex includes the Leavenworth, Entiat and Winthrop National

Fish Hatcheries. Construction of these facilities was authorized by Congress along with

authorization for construction of Grand Coulee Dam in 1938. They were established as part of

what was called the Grand Coulee Fish Maintenance Project (GCFMP) in an effort to maintain

runs of salmon and steelhead whose spawning and rearing areas were to be obstructed by the

construction of Grand Coulee Dam (Mullan 1987). In that effort, beginning in 1939, salmon

were trapped in the fish ladder at Rock Island Dam, 150 miles downstream (Fish and Hanavan

1948). A portion of the fish were trucked to tributaries (Wenatchee, Entiat and Okanogan rivers)

where they were released with the hope they would spawn, while others were taken to the

hatchery as brood stock for egg take and rearing of the juveniles. Surveys had shown that

abundance of salmon was low in the tributaries, suggesting that the project could restore and

enhance these runs as mitigation for losses above Grand Coulee Dam. The goals of the project

were to maintain a catch and escapement of 48,600 chinook, 79,700 sockeye, and 5,000

steelhead from the mid-Columbia or the number of fish estimated to be present when Grand

Coulee Dam was built (Calkins et al. 1939).

There is a difference of opinion as to whether the GCFMP was a success or not. While the

numbers of fish in the tributaries showed an increase in the decade of the 1950’s, other factors

affecting general abundance of salmon, such as restrictions in the lower river fisheries, may have

accounted for the increase (Ricker 1972). Mullan et al. (1992) felt that at least the project was
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 24 5 April 1999

successful in maintaining the genetic diversity of the stocks of salmon above Rock Island Dam.

Chapman et al. (1995), believed that from an analysis of the genetic information, they should be

considered part of a common species unit. Although there is now evidence of a degree of genetic

distinction among certain spring chinook populations above Rock Island Dam. Chapman et al.

(1995) felt that any divergence must have occurred subsequent to the GCFMP. With respect to

summer/fall chinook (which they combined) they felt that the GCFMP had effectively

homogenized the stock (Chapman et al. 1994a). Steelhead, on the other hand, showed a

resistance to homogenization, which they thought was probably due to exchanges of alleles

among resident rainbow/steelhead (Chapman et al. 1994b). One might conclude from the above

information that all of the authors are correct, i.e.: the temporary improvement in fishery

management in the 1950’s contributed to an increase in tributary populations, coinciding with the

GCFMP, as Ricker suggested; what Mullan called maintenance of diversity was maintenance of

potential diversity, assuming the alleles are still present in the population though homogenized;

which would agree with Chapman et al.’s analysis.

The hatchery part of the program continues to this day. Grand Coulee Dam has been replaced as

the lowermost obstacle to passage of salmon by Chief Joseph Dam, another Corps of Engineers

project, located 50 miles downstream. Initially, the hatcheries were funded by Congress as part

of the budget of the U. S. Bureau of Fisheries (in the Department of Commerce) and later, the

Fish and Wildlife Service (Department of Interior). Over the years, there have been a number of

transfers among federal agencies of the responsibility for the budget of the Leavenworth

Complex.

There have been changes in the hatchery program over the years. Spring chinook remain the

primary focus of the hatchery program. Sockeye were included in the GCFMP, both by transfers

to tributaries and by hatchery culture. Attempts to culture sockeye salmon at the Leavenworth

Complex continued from 1944 to 1964 when they were discontinued (Mullan 1986). Mullan

(1986) concluded that while sockeye originating from the hatchery made up 4–6% of the

returning adults, they showed no better ratio of adult numbers to juvenile numbers than wild fish.

Foerster (1968) observed that in the first half of this century, hatchery culture of sockeye was

undertaken on a large scale in waters of the Pacific Coast of North America, but was virtually
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 25 5 April 1999

discontinued when it was recognized that the benefits were largely inconsequential in relation to

natural production.

Coho salmon were also included in the GCFMP and were cultured at the Leavenworth and

Winthrop hatcheries at various times over the years from 1944 to 1973 (Mullan 1983). The

numbers were never large, the largest number spawned being 689 females in 1968. Beginning in

1944 the egg take was occasionally augmented from sources outside the mid-Columbia reach.

Mullan, 1983 noted that coho were virtually eliminated from the mid-Columbia reach prior to the

completion of Grand Coulee Dam in 1941. While coho from the hatchery contributed to sport

and commercial fisheries in the ocean and lower Columbia River, they never developed selfsustaining populations in the mid-Columbia tributaries.

A relatively small effort is directed toward steelhead. Each year about 80 adults are trapped as

they enter Icicle Creek at the Leavenworth Hatchery. This results in the release of about 100,000

smolts two years later, which meets the goal specified in the proposal.

The mitigation goal for spring chinook salmon is an annual release of 2,200,000 yearlings from

the Leavenworth facility, 800,000 from the Entiat, and 1,000,000 from the Winthrop facilities.

However, those goals are not attainable due to inadequate water supply, antiquated rearing

ponds, poor adult holding ponds, and absence of site-specific evaluation of operations. Planned

production at Leavenworth is 1,625,000 yearlings, at Entiat 400,000, and at Winthrop 800,000

yearlings. In addition 400,000 sub-yearlings are released from the Entiat Hatchery.
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 26 5 April 1999

Literature Cited

Calkins, R. D., W. F. Durand, and W. H. Rich. 1939. Report of the board of consultants on the

fish problems of the upper Columbia River, Section II. Stanford University, CA.

Chapman, D., A. Giorgi, T. Hillman, D. Deppert, M. Erho, S. Hays, C. Peven et al. 1994a. Status

of summer/fall chinook salmon in the mid-Columbia region. Don Chapman Consultants

Inc., Boise, ID.

Chapman, D., C. Peven, T. Hillman, A. Giorgi, and F. Utter. 1994b. Status of summer steelhead

in the mid-Columbia River. Don Chapman Consultants Inc., Boise, ID.

Chapman, D., C. Peven, A. Giorgi, T. Hillman, and F. Utter. 1995. Status of spring chinook

salmon in the mid-Columbia region. Don Chapman Consultants Inc., Boise, ID.

Corps of Engineers. 1975. Special Report: Lower Snake River Compensation Plan Evaluation

Studies. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, La Grande, OR.

Corps of Engineers. 1998. Abstracts: Anadromous Fish Evaluation Program, 1998 Annual

Research Review, October 13-15, 1998. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, OR.

Coutant, C. C. and G. F. Cada. 1985. Analysis and development of a project evaluation process.

Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.

Fish, F. F. and M. G. Hanavan. 1948. A report upon the Grand Coulee fish-maintenance project

1939-1947. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

Foerster, R. E. 1968. The sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka. Fisheries Research Board of

Canada Bulletin 162: 1-422.

General Accounting Office. 1994. Peer review: Reforms needed to ensure fairness in federal

agency grant selection. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC.

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

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Boise, ID.

Independent Scientific Advisory Board. 1998a. Review of the U. S. Army corps of Engineers’

capital construction program. Part I The scientific basis for juvenile fish passage

improvements in the federal Columbia River power system: John Day extended length

turbine intake screens and Bonneville Dam bypass systems outfalls. Report No. ISAB 98-

4, Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, OR, and National Marine fisheries

Service, Seattle, WA.

 1998b. Review of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers capital construction program. Part

II.A. Development and testing of surface bypass. Report No. ISAB 98-7. Northwest
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 27 5 April 1999

Power Planning Council, Portland, OR, and National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle,

WA.

 . 1998c. Review of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' capital construction program. Part

II. B. Dissolved gas abatement program. Report No. ISAB 98-8, Northwest Power

Planning Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, OR.

 . 1999a. Review of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers capital construction program. Part

III.A. Adult passage. Report No. ISAB 99-2. Northwest Power Planning Council,

Portland, OR and National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA.

 . 1999b. Review of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers capital construction program. Part

III.B. Overview. Report No. ISAB 99-4. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland,

OR, and National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA.

Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP). 1997. Review of the Columbia River Basin Fish

and Wildlife Program as directed by the 1996 amendment to the Power Act. Northwest

Power Planning Council, ISRP 97-1, Portland, OR.

Meffe, G. K., P. D. Boersma, D. D. Murphy, B. R. Noon, H. R. Pullilam, M. E. Soule, and D. M.

Waller. 1998. Independent scientific review in natural resources. Conservation Biology

12: 268-270.

Mullan, J. W. 1983. Overview of artificial and natural propagation of coho salmon

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) on the mid-Columbia River. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Report No. FRI/FAO-84-4, Fisheries Assistance Office, Leavenworth, WA.

 .1986. Determinants of sockeye salmon abundance in the Columbia River, 1880's - 1982:

A review and synthesis. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 86(12)

Leavenworth, WA.

 . 1987. Status and propagation of chinook salmon in the mid-Columbia River through

1985. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 87(3), Leavenworth, WA.

Mullan, J. W., K. R. Williams, G. Rhodus, T. W. Hillman, and J. D. McIntyre, 1992. Production

and habitat of salmonids in mid-Columbia tributary streams. U. S. Fish and Wildlife

Service Monograph 1.

Northwest Power Planning Council. 1999. Review of the Corps of Engineers’ Columbia River

fish mitigation program. Paper 99-3, Portland, OR.

Ricker, W. E. 1972. Hereditary and environmental factors affecting certain salmonid

populations. Pages 19-160 in R. C. Simon, and P. A. Larkin (eds.), The Stock Concept in

Pacific Salmon. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, CAN.
ISRP Reimbursable Program Review 28 5 April 1999

Scientific Review Group (SRG). 1990a. Memorandum to Policy Review Group, July 25, 1990,

Review of three supplementation proposals. Portland, OR.

 . 1990b. Memorandum to Policy Review Group, July 25, 1990, Recommended guidelines

for research proposals, Portland, OR.

U. S. House of Representatives. 1998. Conference Report H. Rept. 105-749 (September

25, 1998), Washington, DC.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW). 1998. Proceedings of the Lower Snake River

compensation plan status review symposium. Edited by D. Herrig. Lower Snake River

Compensation Plan Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Boise, ID.

________________________________________

w:\em\ww\isrp\1 final isrp reports\isrp 1999-1 reimbursables.doc