Independent Scientific Review Panel

for the Northwest Power Planning Council

851 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1100

Portland, Oregon 97204

isrp@nwppc.org

FY2002 Blue Mountain and Mountain Snake Provincial Review: Part I

Final Review 

of 

Fiscal Year 2002 Project Proposals for the 

Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Provinces

ISRP 2001-12A

December 21, 2001
ISRP Reviewers

Susan Hanna

Nancy Huntly

William Liss

Lyman McDonald

Brian Riddell

Richard N. Williams

Peer Review Group Reviewers

Jack Griffith

John D. McIntyre

Bruce Ward

Ray White

ISRP Contributors

Chuck Coutant

Dan Goodman

Richard Whitney

Staff

Erik Merrill
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

i

ISRP Final Review of Fiscal Year 2002 Proposals for 

the Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Provinces

Contents

Index of Proposals by Project ID................................................................................ ii

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

Recommendation Categories........................................................................................2

Programmatic Issues.......................................................................................................3

Stock Assessments......................................................................................................... 3

Watershed Assessments and Analysis............................................................................. 4

Methods of Rehabilitation and Recovery........................................................................ 7

Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting of Results.......................................................... 9

References.................................................................................................................... 15

Final Recommendation and Comments on Each Proposal..................................16

Multiple Province and Grouped Proposals..............................................................16

Northwest Habitat Institute Mapping Proposals.......................................................... 16

Bull Trout and Related Resident Fish Proposals........................................................... 19

Assessment of Spring/Summer Chinook Habitat in the Grande Ronde and Salmon 

Subbasins..................................................................................................................... 31

Adult Salmon Monitoring (19970300, 27019, 28052).................................................... 33

Four-Step Safety-Net Process and Associated Proposals.............................................. 35

Idaho Supplementation Studies.................................................................................... 41

Mountain Snake Province

Salmon River Subbasin Proposals..............................................................................49

Redfish Lake Sockeye Program.................................................................................... 59

Salmon River Subbasin Habitat Restoration and Protection Proposals......................... 62

Salmon Basin Soil and Water Conservation Proposals.................................................. 63

Lower Salmon Habitat Protection and Restoration Proposals...................................... 71

Clearwater Subbasin Proposals...................................................................................80

Blue Mountain Province Proposals..........................................................................116

Asotin ........................................................................................................................ 116

Snake River Hells Canyon Proposals.......................................................................... 121

Imnaha ....................................................................................................................... 128

Grande Ronde............................................................................................................ 130

Northeast Oregon Hatchery Program........................................................................ 152

Table of Proposals: Sorted by ISRP and CBFWA Recommendation..............163

Mountain Snake ......................................................................................................... 163

Blue Mountain ........................................................................................................... 177
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

ii

Index of Proposals by Project ID

New Projects

Project ID Page Project ID Page Project ID Page

27001 117 28003 16 28035 53

27002 119 28004 80 28036 64

27003 16 28005 31 28037 67

27004 145 28006 58 28038 65

27005 144 28007 29 28039 66

27006 18 28008 70 28040 66

27007 31 28009 56 28041 89

27008 142 28010 73 28042 91

27009 119 28011 57 28043 92

27010 128 28012 38 28044 71

27011 143 28013 81 28045 93

27012 140 28015 38 28046 95

27013 141 28016 69 28047 96

27014 118 28017 81 28048 97

27015 123 28018 72 28049 75

27016 127 28019 77 28050 74

27017 22 28020 82 28051 55

27018 146 28021 82 28052 35

27019 34 28022 24 28054 57

27020 134 28023 25 28055 39

27021 129 28025 84 28056 38

27022 147 28026 40 28057 37

27023 131 28029 85 28057 37

27024 151 28030 28 28058 76

27025 120 28031 86 28059 112

27026 149 28032 87 28060 98

28001 53 28033 88 28061 34

28002 27 28034 54
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

iii

Ongoing Projects

Project ID Page Project ID Page Project ID Page

198335000 99 199604300 47 199901900 67

198335003 100 199607702 104 199902000 51

198402500 134 199607703 105 200002100 133

198709900 83 199607705 106 200002800 113

198740700 101 199608000 130 200003400 114

198805301 155 199608300 139 200003500 114

198805305 158 199608600 107 200003600 115

198909800 45 199700100 59

198909801 46 199700900 121

198909802 46 199701501 128

198909803 46 199702500 138

199005500 47 199703000 33

199102800 50 199703800 41

199107100 61 199706000 107

199107200 60 199800702 159

199107300 49 199800703 160

199202601 136 199800704 158

199202603 63 199801001 160

199202604 148 199801003 124

199204000 60 199801004 125

199303501 101 199801005 126

199401500 62 199801006 162

199401805 116 199901400 108

199403900 137 199901500 109

199405000 78 199901600 110

199405402 20 199901700 111

199501300 103 199901800 113
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

1

Final Review of Fiscal Year 2002 Proposals for the 

Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Provinces

Introduction

This report provides final comments and recommendations on projects submitted for Fiscal 

Year 2002 funding in the Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Provinces. It also provides a 

preliminary discussion of programmatic issues that cut across subbasins and provinces, and 

were identified in the course of the proposal review. 

This report is part one of three reports the ISRP released on December 21, 2001, pertaining 

to fish and wildlife projects in the Blue Mountain and Mountain Snake Provincial Review. 

The second report consists of a preliminary review of Lower Snake River Compensation 

Plan proposals, and the third is a preliminary review of Northeast Oregon Hatchery Spring 

Chinook Master Plan Step Two documents.

The review process to develop these recommendations and comments included several 

steps. On September 28, 2001, the ISRP released a preliminary review of Blue Mountain 

and Mountain Snake proposals (ISRP 2001-9; www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2001-

9.htm). The review process for that report included several elements that are the foundation 

of the provincial review process. The review process for that report included several 

elements that are the foundation of the provincial review process. Each proposal was 

reviewed by at least three reviewers and discussed by the full review team. Proponents of 

each proposal gave presentations to the ISRP. Each presentation was followed by a 

question and answer session. The ISRP review teams visited most of the subbasins in the 

provinces, during which the teams engaged in informal discussions with project leaders. The 

combination of the discussions and oral presentations was invaluable in identifying potential 

issues and clarifying the nature of the projects. The site visits and presentations were well 

organized and informative. As stated in our preliminary report, we were privileged to 

witness this year’s strong run of fish spawning in the wild and appreciate the project 

sponsors’ effort during the busy field season.

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

weeks to respond to the ISRP’s comments. The ISRP received about 140 responses. The 

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

proposal, and the ISRP review teams as a whole discussed the responses. The ISRP received 

CBFWA’s Draft FY 2002-2004 Blue Mountain and Mountain Snake Work Plans, as 

scheduled on November 30, 2001 (see www.cbfwa.org), and briefly conferred to compare 

the ISRP review team recommendations with CBFWA’s recommendations and comments. 

Consequently, each ISRP recommendation includes a comparison with CBFWA’s 

prioritization and takes into account project sponsor responses to the ISRP’s preliminary 

review.

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

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

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

organized, informative, and demonstrated an improving trend over those in the earlier 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

2

province workshops. This is evidence that the review process is generating benefits towards 

better organization, coordination, and scientific emphasis to projects. Participation by the 

Lower Snake Compensation Plan project proponents was also a step forward toward 

providing a more complete picture of the recovery and mitigation activities occurring in the 

basin.

Recommendation Categories

Recommendations and comments are provided for each of the 142 proposals submitted. 

These recommendations are split into three basic categories: 1) fundable (59 proposals); 2) 

fundable in part (33 proposals); and 3) not fundable (48 proposals). Two proposals were 

considered not amenable to scientific review.

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

to the Northwest Power Act. The amended Act directs the ISRP to review projects in the 

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

1. are based on sound science principles; 

2. benefit fish and wildlife; 

3. have clearly defined objectives and outcomes; and 

4. have provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results. 

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

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

where its recommendations diverge from those of the ISRP.

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

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

proposal. After its Fiscal Year 1999 review, the ISRP began using “fundable” rather than 

“adequate proposal,” because funding recommendations are the common currency between 

the Council, CBFWA, and BPA. As such, the “fundable” categories enable a ready 

comparison with CBFWA’s recommendations, which is part of the ISRP review. 

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

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

be an integral part of a program that provides the necessary elements. For example, a 

habitat restoration proposal may use data from a separate monitoring and evaluation 

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

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

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

selection process. “Fundable” is not an ISRP endorsement to fund the project or an opinion 

on the proposal’s priority.

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

supported, but also work that is not. In this case, the ISRP specifies which objectives or 

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

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

for instance a proposal for both background assessment work and concurrent major on-the-
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

3

ground implementation that could not be supported before results of the assessment were 

known, and proposals that included use of unsound methods to meet a particular objective.

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

ISRP review criteria. One example is a research proposal that is technically sound but does 

not offer benefits to fish and wildlife because it substantially duplicates past efforts and does 

not offer new insights. Another example is a proposal for an ongoing project that may offer 

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

results. Usually a deficiency in one area is a symptom of overall deficiency in the proposal. 

In most cases, proposals that receive “Not Fundable” recommendations lack detailed 

methods, provision for monitoring and evaluation, or have the potential for deleterious 

effects on native populations. The ISRP notes that numerous “not fundable” projects 

propose needed actions or are an integral part of a watershed effort, but the proposed 

methods, tasks and objectives are not scientifically sound. The ISRP comments are intended 

to indicate areas where serious remedial effort, such as significant revision and review, is 

needed before funding continues. In some cases, an RFP is warranted to address the needed 

action.

ISRP comments also include observations on budgetary, in lieu, and other issues that are not 

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

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

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

inquiry. 

Programmatic Issues

These statements on programmatic issues should be considered works in progress. They are 

included here because the basic elements are of value in judging the merits of project 

proposals in the Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Provinces. However, not all Provinces 

have been reviewed by the ISRP and not all ISRP members were on the Peer Review Group 

for the Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Provinces. The ISRP anticipates that a final 

report on overarching programmatic issues will be issued by the ISRP in 2002 upon the 

completion of the Provincial Reviews.

Stock Assessments

A basinwide salmonid stock assessment program is required as the basis for management 

and research of fish and fisheries in the Columbia Basin. The ISRP notes a lack of 

consensus over a uniform stock assessment protocol. Salmonid stock inventory is key, in 

particular, to the management decisions on appropriate tools for recovery. 

For anadromous salmonids, key variables required in an assessment include harvest, adult 

escapement, smolt yield to determine smolts per spawner as a function of spawner density, 

adults per smolt, and trends in these statistics over time periods that define the productivity 

and capacity within a climatological and/or ecological regime. A standardized, uniform 

index management system is required, where sites are selected to represent a particular 

geographic location (province), where detailed life stage monitoring may be required, usually 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

4

at a fish enumeration facility. Other watersheds are tracked to determine relative abundance, 

via harvest records, spawner surveys, redd counts, fry abundance, or other means that have 

been calibrated to the index site results. Such a program is rare, if non-existent, in the 

Columbia Basin, but examples of its use may be found in British Columbia for several 

different salmonid species, and on the eastern seaboard for Atlantic salmon. A program of 

stock assessment is briefly described on the Fisheries and Oceans Canada website 

(www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/ops/fm/Salmon/stock.htm), including a listing of crucial 

information needs, and example cases.

From an adequate stock assessment and stock status analysis (e.g., healthy, critical, 

depressed, or endangered), a list of management tools appropriate to the stock’s recruitment 

level may be selected. These tools include choices within harvest, habitat, and hatchery 

management. In the recovery projects reviewed in the Columbia Provinces, we rarely 

encountered a project justification that provided a solid reference to such a stock assessment 

framework. Projects need to coordinate their efforts towards a solid stock assessment 

framework, and indicate the linkage of stock assessment and stock status to their proposed 

work within project applications.

Stock assessment and watershed assessment are consistent with the required elements of the 

sub-basin plan. Careful selection of index sites will be necessary, since these sites will 

become the standard for comparison, or controls, in Tier 2 and 3 levels of evaluation, 

monitoring, and research, as described below. Careful coordination of sub-basin activities 

and effectiveness evaluation is thus centered on the stock assessment and index stream 

system. 

Watershed Assessments and Analysis

At least four watershed assessment protocols have been in use in this area:

1. Federal Guide to Watershed Analysis. 

www.southernregion.fs.fed.us/gwj/lrmp/plandocs/r8r9_water_assess_attach.htm

2. Washington Department Natural Resource Guide to Watershed Analysis. 

www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/sshiap/

3. Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual, by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board 

(OWEB). www.oweb.state.or.us/

4. The Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) model is being applied throughout the 

Columbia River Basin and elsewhere (www.mobrand.com).

Standard protocols for watershed assessment, prescription, rehabilitation and evaluation in 

the Columbia River Basin are lacking. A thorough, standard watershed assessment and a 

prescription that arises from the assessment, with a clear set of priorities is required. We 

would like to point these efforts toward standard protocols of condition assessment and a 

database for information storage that can be useful Basinwide and beyond. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

5

On forested lands in British Columbia, the Watershed Restoration Program has developed 

guidelines for condition assessment, starting with overview assessments (Johnston and 

Moore 1995) which serve to indicate where stable conditions do not warrant further work 

and where more intensive levels of assessment are required on hill slopes, and in gullies, 

riparian areas, stream channels, and fish habitat. More information on these manuals may be 

obtained from the Ministry website: 

srmwww.gov.bc.ca/frco/programs/wrp/procedures.html

The next phase that requires a similar science-based approach is in the rehabilitation work. 

In BC, Slaney and Zaldokas (1997) "Fish Habitat Rehabilitation Procedures" 

(srmwww.gov.bc.ca/frco/bookshop/tech.html) is frequently referenced. Similar guidelines 

are in development for Washington State (www.wa.gov/wdfw/hab/ahg/).

After assessment, prescription, rehabilitation, comes the task of monitoring and evaluation. 

Keeley and Walters (1994) provided recommendations for monitoring, using smolts as the 

response variable in numerous paired (treated and untreated) watersheds, but the program 

never evolved towards their recommended level of evaluation. Other frameworks have 

emerged for tracking project effectiveness (Gaboury and Wong 1999).

As recently implemented by the U.S. Forest Service, watershed analysis is a procedure used 

to characterize the human, aquatic, riparian and terrestrial features, conditions, processes, 

and interactions (collectively referred to as "ecosystem elements") within a watershed. It 

follows the protocol of Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale (EAWS), to provide a 

systematic way to understand and organize ecosystem information. 

Watershed analysis is an issue-driven stage-setting process that establishes the context for 

subsequent NEPA and project decision steps. It simplifies and shortens the preparation of 

project environmental analyses. It enhances the ability to estimate direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects of management activities and guide their general type, location, and 

sequence within a watershed. 

The EAWS relies upon the judgment of an interdisciplinary team to:

1) Characterize the watershed highlighting the dominant processes and features;

2) Identify plan objectives and regulatory constraints to resource management;

3) Identify key issues and resource concerns specific to the watershed;

4) Describe current conditions and links with other scales;

5) Describe reference conditions and explain changes in ecological conditions resulting 

from anthropogenic and natural disturbances;

6) Synthesize and interpret results to explain changes in ecosystem conditions and their 

probable causes, including implications for watershed management objectives; and 

7) Develop recommendations for management activities that are responsive to the 

issues and key questions.

During this provincial review, the ISRP noted the increasing efforts being expended on 

EAWS preparation in National Forests, as well as proposals to use the EAWS protocol on 

non-federal lands. Based upon relatively limited exposure to EAWS, the ISRP offers three 

observations. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

6

1. EAWS is appropriate to identify and prioritize federal land rehabilitation activities such as 

culvert replacement and road decommissioning that might be considered for Bonneville 

funding. In cases where USFS funds are unavailable, EAWS preparation by consultants 

seems appropriate to accelerate the identification and prioritization process.

2. EAWS prepared by consultants in situations (such as Deer Creek in the Salmon subbasin, 

proposal #28044) where land is non-federal and of mixed ownership are often hindered by 

inadequate data on fish and fish habitats. Under data-poor conditions, an effective 

watershed assessment will be more difficult to produce and funding requests for those 

endeavors should be carefully scrutinized. 

3. EAWS will not in itself be adequate to plan and prioritize larger fish-centered projects that 

are often presented for Bonneville funding. Watershed assessments as the basis of fish 

restoration objectives must be able to prioritize stream reaches based on actual vs. potential 

natural fish production. The prioritization will rely on assessments of relative survival by lifestage (such as egg to fry and parr to smolt for anadromous species) for each reach. The 

ISRP observes that developing such a watershed assessment approach is one of the biggest 

challenges in these Provinces. Little developmental progress was evident from the year 2001 

field tour, proposals, and presentations. The ISRP has noted significant progress toward 

such a goal elsewhere (such as in the Yakima system, using EDT) and will continue its 

involvement in helping to find a solution.

The ISRP offers a further general observation about watershed restoration. Many watershed 

projects are based on a general assumption that the sponsors can conclude from the 

literature or from their personal experience how to improve conditions for salmonids and 

achieve some (undefined) concept of watershed health. If watershed restoration projects are 

to be credible, they should include physical criteria by which the relationship between 

“watershed health” and fish production will be measured. When a rancher says “show me 

that if I leave 10% of my water in a stream, and keep my livestock X number of feet from a 

creek that the fish run will be significantly increased,” data need to be available to 

demonstrate this relationship. Additionally, a systematic and evaluative approach to 

watershed restoration will generate knowledge about the success and failures of alternative 

approaches and the appropriate incentives to achieve effective landowner cooperation. 

Prioritization of Habitat Protection and Restoration Projects 

Productive habitat for fish and wildlife provides complex structural diversity in space and 

time. The quality of habitat for different life-stages varies across and between watersheds, 

and from year-to-year, depending on factors such as flood frequency, snow-pack, and fire. 

Populations persist under these variable conditions because they have a complex structure of 

sub-populations, some strong and some vulnerable, distributed across a wide array of 

habitats. Extinction in one area can be compensated, in time, by emigration from an 

adjacent sub-population that was not decimated. Similarly, low production in one area may 

be compensated by above average production in adjacent areas. 

Scientists can make educated guesses regarding the optimal population structure and habitat 

patterns for a successful population. Projects to halt disruption of, or to restore, watershed 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

7

processes that produce productive natural habitat for fish and wildlife probably are beneficial 

in most situations, but by themselves, likely to make only minor contributions to restoration 

of the structure in space and time needed by a successful population of wildlife or fish. Our 

confidence in the “gardening approach” (piecemeal improvement of the appearance of 

habitat) to restoring the complexity needed for protecting fish and wildlife populations is 

low. For these reasons, we recommend that administrators and scientists participating in the 

Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program focus attention on identifying, as soon as possible, the 

overall spatial array of watersheds and habitat units needed to protect important populations. 

The ISRP believes that the best long term strategies for protecting fish and wildlife habitat 

and restoring viable populations are to purchase lands, conservation easements, and water 

rights for instream flow. The greatest scientific confidence for protecting the needs of 

populations resides in protecting as many areas maintained by natural processes as possible, 

at least until specific needs are better understood. 

In September 2001, the ISRP reviewed the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes’ 

Habitat Acquisition and Restoration Plan (19910600) to determine whether it provided 

scientifically sound criteria and protocol to prioritize habitat acquisitions. The ISRP found 

that document described a good plan for habitat acquisition and restoration of wildlife 

habitat in mitigation for lost aquatic and riparian habitat due to the Kerr Project No. 5 

located on the Flathead River and could serve as a useful model to other habitat and 

restoration proposals with some minor revision of the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) 

component of the plan. 

Methods of Rehabilitation and Recovery

Supplementation as an Experiment

At the conclusion of the Blue Mountain and Mountain Snake provincial reviews, the ISRP 

has an increasing concern that the Columbia Basin’s suite of large-scale supplementation 

projects (Hood River, Yakima, NEOH [Northeast Oregon], NPTH [Nez Perce Tribal 

Hatchery], ISS [Idaho Supplementation Studies], LSRCP [Lower Snake River Compensation 

Program], and others) do not add up to a coherent complete test of the major hypotheses 

associated with supplementation as a rebuilding and recovery tool. Critical uncertainties may 

remain unresolved indefinitely.

The basin is investing very large amounts of money and resources into supplementation, 

both as an experimental test of the technique and as a rebuilding tool to achieve the FWP’s 

goals. Chief among the supplementation programs reviewed to date are the Yakima Cle 

Elum projects, the ISS suite of projects, and the NEOH projects. The ISRP has provided 

extensive critical comments on all of these projects and programs in this Blue 

Mountain/Mountain Snake review and our earlier Columbia Plateau review (ISRP 2001-8), 

including many suggestions on how to increase the experimental rigor of these projects 

toward addressing critical uncertainties about supplementation. The ISRP is concerned that 

without a larger experimental framework that links all supplementation projects in the basin 

together specifically to test the major hypotheses and reduce uncertainties, the huge 

investment presently being made will not resolve the issues to any real degree. If so, the 

present often-acrimonious debates about supplementation will likely continue unabated. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

8

The ISRP is aware of ongoing efforts of three scientific advisory groups to provide advice to 

the Council on “supplementation”: the Council’s Artificial Production Review, the 

Independent Scientific Advisory Board’s (ISAB) pending review of supplementation, and the 

present and continuing ISRP review of project proposals within Provinces, including the 

upcoming Columbia Cascade and Systemwide reviews. The ISRP recommends that ongoing 

review efforts on artificial production and supplementation be more closely linked together 

to try to reach consensus among the scientific advisory groups on whether the basin’s 

investment in testing supplementation is likely to be successful at resolving critical 

uncertainties. If not, then consensus on an overall basin-wide experimental framework and 

design is needed.

No-till (direct seeding) Production

Numerous proposals to demonstrate the benefits of no-till methods (direct seeding) of 

agricultural production have been submitted to the Fish and Wildlife Program. These 

proposals are motivated by the problem of topsoil erosion leading to sediment deposition in 

streams and degradation of fish habitat. The proposals have in common the advocacy of notill methods, a reliance on subsidies, a reliance on individual demonstration projects, an 

absence of economic evaluation, and an absence of biological evaluation of fish response to 

reduced sedimentation.

The ISRP has commented in past reviews that no-till projects should evaluate:

• the impact of alternative practices on soil erosion and sediment deposition; 

• the impact of various levels of sedimentation loads on fish;

• the costs and benefits (economic and ecological) of no-till rather than attempt to 

demonstrate benefits alone; 

• adoption economics at different operating scales and production conditions. 

No-till methods may be a promising technique to control erosion, but they should be 

evaluated through an experimental approach that includes the costs and benefits of no-till 

under different production conditions and scales. (e.g. What operating costs are specific to 

no-till? How do they change over different operating scales and production portfolios? What 

are the breakeven points for operations at different scales? How do these compare to breakeven points under conventional production methods?)

Given the proposed public investment in subsidies to introduce no-till production, projects 

should also assess adoption behavior over a range of subsidies. 

An evaluative approach would produce information about economics of production of 

different operations and identify the factors most important in influencing adoption. It 

would generate information useful to the establishment of a subsidy structure or other 

economic incentives, allow findings to be generalized beyond individual case studies and 

eliminate the need to carry out county-by-county demonstration projects.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

9

Economic analysis: 

Principal investigators of proposed no-till projects have not been economists. The ISRP 

recommends that economic analysis of the no-till question be subcontracted to agricultural 

economists with experience in production economics. The two general components of an 

economic analysis are production economics and adoption response functions, including the 

following:

• production costs (fixed and variable) of tilling practices, at different scales

• production costs (fixed and variable) of no-till practices, at different scales

• investment costs and depreciation schedule for no-till equipment 

• production practices – sequencing, etc

• commodity prices and market structure

• breakeven points for till and no-till practices

• non-cost factors influencing adoption choice

• adoption response function (dep. vars. e.g. scale of operation, area, commodity 

price, costs)

Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting of Results

As specified in the 1996 Amendment to the Power Act, a primary review function of the 

ISRP is to determine if projects are based on sound scientific principles and are likely to 

benefit fish and wildlife. Integral to this determination is whether projects monitor and 

evaluate progress and report results that allow measurement of benefits. Project proposals 

often lack detailed description of the kind of monitoring and evaluation that is necessary in 

sound scientific programs. We offer the following suggestions for implementation, trend 

(routine), statistical, and research monitoring. 

For some projects, monitoring is made difficult by the localized nature of the project 

compared to the larger spatial scale on which the ultimate ecological responses (e.g., 

increased populations of fish or wildlife) can be expected. This is particularly true of many 

proposals for which the target species to be benefited are anadromous fishes. For such 

projects, monitoring can in part be addressed at the level of the subbasin plan and in part 

with separate larger-scale monitoring projects. These parts need to be coordinated, and the 

overall plan needs to describe and explain the coordination. Monitoring of ecological 

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

whether the initial diagnosis of the subbasin was correct and whether the ecological 

problems are being solved by the cumulative effects of the projects in that subbasin. The 

large-scale aspects of monitoring may best be addressed by separate projects that have the 

explicit objective of monitoring ecological conditions and stock status for a large area (e.g., a 

subbasin, basin, or region). Eventually the adequacy of the monitoring for an individual 

project would be judged in terms of the combined project-specific monitoring in the 

proposal and the linkage (which also should be described in the proposal) to the larger scale 

monitoring and cumulative impact assessment in the subbasin. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

10

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

the project’s activities. Each project should propose the level of monitoring (see discussion 

below) that is needed, should justify the adequacy of this level of monitoring for determining 

success of the project, and should outline the sampling design and methods that will be 

applied to attain monitoring goals. The monitoring plan may be provided directly as part of a 

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

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

proposals. In the latter case, it will be necessary that the project proposal for the parallel or 

larger scale monitoring project provide enough detail that the adequacy of the monitoring 

for purposes of the lower level project can be evaluated. Monitoring and evaluation at the 

basin, province, or subbasin scale may realize additional savings if proponents of related 

projects collectively design and implement their monitoring and evaluation activities. 

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

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

monitoring is conducted by another project. Reviewers look for a monitoring and evaluation 

plan or a project link to a larger monitoring and evaluation program that can help determine 

whether an action provides biologically measurable results, ultimately in terms of fish or 

wildlife numbers. The ISRP is not necessarily recommending major research-level data 

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

effect, which requires an explicit experimental framework. Rather, we envision use of costeffective, consistent, written procedures that can be easily replicated by new personnel. 

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

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

replaced? How does it compare to M&E needed to evaluate the collective projects in the 

Fish and Wildlife Program for recovery of spring chinook runs in the John Day River Basin? 

How does it compare to a project that evaluates the survival rates of adult salmonids caught 

and released from tangle nets? 

Monitoring has been categorized in a hierarchical sequence (Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3) in the 

NMFS All-H document (Conservation of Columbia Basin Fish: Final Basinwide Salmon Recovery 

Strategy, Volume 1, Table 4). We also recommend categorizing monitoring in a hierarchical 

sequence from monitoring of implementation and effectiveness of individual projects to 

large-scale statistical studies and research experiments. Four hierarchical levels should be 

considered: 1) implementation monitoring, 2) trend monitoring (NMFS Tier 1), 3) statistical 

monitoring (NMFS Tier 2), and 4) research monitoring (NMFS Tier 3). 

• Implementation Monitoring is added as a term to describe monitoring of task 

completion. For example, miles of stream fenced, number of culverts removed, 

completion of reports, irrigation diversions maintained, etc. Implementation monitoring 

is often given in proposals to the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program. Implementation 

monitoring results must be presented, but sound science requires that project results also 

be measured in terms of benefits to fish and wildlife using one of the following levels of 

monitoring.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

11

• Tier 1 (trend or routine) monitoring obtains repeated measurements, usually 

representing a single spatial unit over a period of time, with a view to quantifying 

changes over time. Changes must be distinguished from background noise. This is 

usually a low level of monitoring that falls under the NMFS Tier 1. Tier 1 trend 

monitoring on individual project sites does not establish cause and effect relationships 

(i.e., is not research) and does not provide statistical inductive inferences to larger areas 

or time periods. However, Tier 1 trend monitoring on similar projects replicated over 

time and space can provide compelling evidence for general conclusions. 

• Tier 2 (statistical) monitoring provides statistical inferences to larger areas and longer 

time periods and requires both probabilistic selection of study sites and repeated visits 

(NMFS Tier 2). A good model is the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds 

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

coastal coho streams and proposed in the John Day Basin of the Columbia Plateau 

Province. The Oregon Plan, successfully implemented for estimation of coho 

distribution and abundance, applied a rigorous design for probabilistic site selection to 

answer key monitoring questions. Individual proposals can support larger Tier 2 

statistical monitoring projects such as the Oregon Plan by using the same field methods 

and methods to select study sites that contribute information to Tier 2 statistical 

monitoring. Most large projects should implement sampling designs that allow Tier 2 

statistical monitoring or contribute data to statistical monitoring.

• Tier 3 (research) monitoring is for those projects or groups of projects whose 

objectives include establishment of mechanistic links between management actions and 

salmon or other fish or wildlife population response (NMFS Tier 3). Bisbal (2001) 

defines this level of effort as effects or response monitoring; the repeated measurement of 

environmental variables to detect changes caused by external influences. The key words 

here are “establishment of mechanistic links” and “detect changes caused by external 

influences.” Generally, the results of Tier 3 research monitoring qualify for publication 

in the refereed scientific literature. Examples of Tier 3 monitoring would include: 1) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

various land restoration or management techniques, etc.

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

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

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

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

bottom, riparian zone, and uplands area in these large regions every month of every year for 

decades. Many of the Columbia Basins’ projects for “monitoring” fish and wildlife species 

(redds, spawners, juveniles, etc.) currently limit surveys to “index sites” selected by 

professional judgment in past years. Use of such data for inferences to larger areas is 

problematic, and requires additional data obtained from a special design in order to calibrate 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

12

the relation between the index sites and the larger area as considered from the perspective of 

Tier 2 statistical monitoring. The proponents of such projects should plan their monitoring 

programs to allow for valid inductive inferences to the target areas. To maintain consistency 

of calibration, sites and methods used in the past should be continued along with the new 

sites (and possibly new methods) in a new Tier 2 statistical monitoring program for at least 

enough time to obtain an adequate sample for calibration. Depending on the original reasons 

for selecting the index sites, there may be good reason to continue monitoring at those 

locations, which would henceforth be treated as a special, defined stratum in the design. 

Monitoring provides the information that will be used to evaluate the success or failure of a 

project to contribute to the ultimate goals of fish and wildlife recovery, preservation, or 

mitigation. Thus, each project should explicitly state its local, specific, and short-term goals 

as well as the ways in which these contribute to the larger longer-term goals of fish and 

wildlife remediation and mitigation. These goals should be cast in the form of measurable 

biological results and criteria for success, such as habitat parameters and fish and wildlife 

numbers or performance measures. This level of biological monitoring with direct ties to 

goals is required under the 1996 Amendment to the Power Act. Bisbal (2001) provides some 

useful guidelines for fish and wildlife evaluation plans, including choice of indicators to 

monitor, management needs, planning of the evaluation component, the importance of 

sampling design, consideration of the statistical analyses that are anticipated, and the value of 

pilot studies to test techniques and performance standards.

Monitoring for Survival and SAR using PIT-TAGS

Much has been learned about survival and return rates of salmonids based on PIT-TAG 

technology. Undoubtedly, PIT-TAGS will continue to play a central role in design and 

analysis of individual research programs and scientific observational studies. However, the 

ISRP believes that a coordinated annual operations and management project is needed for 

application and detection of PIT-TAGS in support of long term monitoring and evaluation 

of out-migration survival of juveniles and return rates of adults.

Specific Comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation 

The ISRP emphasizes its support of the proponents of projects in the Mountain Snake and 

Blue Mountain Provinces to work with all Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Montana 

Provinces to develop compatible aquatic monitoring and evaluation procedures with 

common field procedures and probabilistic site selection for the entire Columbia River 

Basin. 

A similar effort is underway in the Oregon portion of the Columbia Plateau Province. 

Principal Investigators of aquatic monitoring projects in the Mountain Snake and Blue 

Mountain Provinces should interact closely with Project No. 199801600 in the Columbia 

Plateau (Jim Ruzycki and Richard Carmichael, ODFW, “Monitor Natural Escapement and 

Productivity of John Day Basin Spring Chinook Salmon”). ODFW revised this proposal to 

create a comprehensive plan to include all monitoring and evaluation for all anadromous 

salmonid life-stages and habitats in the John Day portion of the Columbia River Plateau 

Province. The M&E program in the John Day Basin is apparently developing as a model for 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

13

the Oregon section of the Columbia Basin and is being carefully reviewed by agencies in 

Washington.

A potential problem in efforts to standardize sampling and data collection protocols was 

brought to the attention of the ISRP during the review of responses to our initial concerns 

on project Project 199107300, “Idaho Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation.” The 

proponents indicated that progress toward improved system monitoring and evaluation 

should occur through a coordinated Fish and Wildlife Program and ESA process, specifically 

the proposed Technical Oversight Committees for Research, Monitoring and Evaluation and 

Data Management organized through the FCRPS Implementation Plan. They also indicated 

that they intend to coordinate project activities and sampling plans with any such 

collaborative programs. However, they comment that the proposed formulation of the 

Technical Oversight Committees, defined as multi-federal membership without state or 

tribal participation, is unacceptable. If this is correct, the Council might consider supporting 

a larger role for the states and tribes in the collaborative development of this plan.

The ISRP recommends that the Council endorse and support these efforts to develop 

standard sampling and data collection protocols within the Columbia Basin. It is extremely 

difficult to change a monitoring plan once it is in place. With the increased emphasis on 

monitoring and evaluation in ISRP project reviews, this may represent a one-time 

opportunity to make progress on this difficult task. We also recommend that the proponents 

of all aquatic habitat monitoring consider using aquatic habitat data collection protocols 

recommended in Johnson et al. (2001).

Specific Comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation

The ISRP endorses the efforts of the proponents of Projects: 199202603, 28036, 28038, 

28040, 28039, 28037 to research the Natural Resources Conservation Service terrestrial 

monitoring program (i.e., the National Resources Inventory) and to consider a broader, 

ridgetop-to-ridgetop perspective. The Principal Investigators plan to evaluate this sampling 

program and the possibility of coordinating monitoring locations with established NRI 

points. Similarly, the ISRP endorses the commitment in the response by proponents of 

28018 to develop a more unified monitoring and evaluation plan.

In response to the ISRP’s comments and the Council’s recommendations, the Albeni Falls 

Workgroup prepared a Draft Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for the Albeni Falls Wildlife 

Mitigation Project, dated August 2001 and submitted it for Council and ISRP review. This 

draft plan is currently under review by the Council and the ISRP. Although the review is not 

complete, it seems likely that this plan will be recommended as a model for terrestrial 

(including riparian) monitoring in the Columbia Basin. We encourage the proponents of 

terrestrial monitoring projects in all provinces to work closely with the Albeni Falls 

Workgroup and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes to develop common site 

selection procedures and data collection protocols for terrestrial monitoring within the 

Provinces of the Columbia Basin.

In particular we have suggested that an intensification of the National Resources Inventory 

(NRI) survey sites and data collection protocols would serve the Columbia Basin well. See 

the Proposals #200002300 and #200020116, the ISRP reviews in the Columbia Plateau, and 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

14

the NRI web site www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/NRI/. The Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program 

includes objectives for fish and wildlife habitat in subbasins and in fact for the entire 

Columbia Basin. It is our understanding that subsets of data collected in the NRI could be 

utilized at the present time to make statistical inferences (to variables currently measured by 

the NRI) in the Columbia Basin and in some of the larger subbasins. See Oregon and 

Washington results from the NRI on the sites: www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/nri/index.htm, and 

www.wa.nrcs.usda.gov/NRI. Monitoring of habitat and other land uses on the scale of 

subbasins (e.g., the Salmon subbasin) and the Columbia Basin will require development of a 

system wide probabilistic sampling plan similar to the NRI or use of the NRI with 

appropriate variables measured. The ISRP believes that a coordinated “top-down” plan that 

can be intensified to make inferences to “small areas” (e.g., the size of projects in the Albeni 

Falls Dam Wildlife Mitigation Projects) is the best long-term strategy for the Columbia 

Basin.

Habitat Evaluation Procedures and Habitat Suitability Indices

In reviewing the Albeni Falls plan for wildlife monitoring and evaluation and Habitat 

Evaluation Procedures (HEP), the ISRP noted that the proposal includes provision for longterm HEP evaluations. We suggest that effort put into long-term repetition of HEP analyses 

may not be very useful and that use of HEP analyses and their associated Habitat Units 

(HUs) to guide land management may lead to counterproductive management practices. 

HEP is based on the assumption that habitat suitability for a species can be described by a 

Habitat Suitability Index (HSI). These indices vary in quality and many are based on limited 

information. Measures of uncertainty in the form of confidence bounds on HSIs are rarely 

given, but have been found to be very broad. Management to produce or maintain habitat 

that is predicted by an index of untested quality to provide good habitat for a particular 

species is not warranted when better and more direct information on wildlife is available. 

We urge the program away from continuing emphasis on HEP evaluation as a tool for longterm evaluation or management planning. 

We have noted before that the HEP procedure was a reasonable way to assess loss and 

mitigation initially. The Wildlife Program developed with the expectation that Habitat Units 

(HUs) could provide a proxy for direct wildlife measures and so an increase in HUs could be 

expected in a well-managed program and could provide a yardstick for measuring recovery. 

However, the development of good-quality direct monitoring programs will make this coarse 

approximation obsolete as an evaluation tool. The Albeni Working Group is prudent in 

allowing that they expect to at least maintain baseline HUs and they will allow a 20% 

decrease in this before invoking a management response. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

15

References

Monitoring and Evaluation Section

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

wildlife in the Columbia River ecosystem. Environmental Management 28(4): 433-453.

Johnson, D. H., N. Pittman, E. Wilder, J. A. Silver, R. W. Plotnikoff, B. C. Mason, K. K. 

Jones, P. Roger, T. A. O’Neil, C. Barrett. 2001. Inventory and Monitoring of Salmon 

Habitat in the Pacific Northwest - Directory and Synthesis of Protocols for 

Management/Research and Volunteers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, 

and British Columbia. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, 

Washington. 211pp.

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

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

(www.oregon-plan.org/)

Nicholas, J.W. (Principal Writer). 1997b. Monitoring Program, Addendum to Chapter 15b. 

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

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

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

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

Salem, Oregon. (www.oregon-plan.org/) 

Watershed Assessment Section

Fish Habitat Assessment procedures are now on line at

srmwww.gov.bc.ca/frco/programs/wrp/fhap/index.html. This is also the

link to these documents on line:

Keeley, E.R. & C.J. Walters. 1994. The BC Watershed Restoration Program: Summary of 

the Experimental Design, Monitoring and Restoration Techniques Workshop. BC 

Watershed Restoration Management Report. 34p. 284Kb

Johnston, N.T. & Slaney, P.A. 1996. Fish Habitat Assessment Procedures, BC Watershed 

Restoration Technical Circular. 97p. 576Kb

Johnston, N.T. & Moore, G.D. 1995. Guidelines for Planning Watershed Restoration 

Projects. BC Watershed Restoration Technical Circular. 52p. 130Kb

Slaney, P.A., and Zaldokas, D. [Editors]. 1997. Fish Habitat Rehabilitation Procedures. BC 

Watershed Restoration Technical Circular No. 9. 341p. 7.1Mb

Gaboury, M. & Wong, R. 1999. A Framework for Conducting Effectiveness Evaluations of 

Watershed Restoration Projects. BC Watershed Restoration Technical Circular. 33p.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

16

Final Recommendation and Comments on Each Proposal

Final recommendations and comments are provided on the 142 proposals submitted and are 

organized in several sets. The first set includes proposals that have activities in multiple 

provinces or are part of a group of related proposals that are best reviewed together; e.g. bull 

trout assessments and the Idaho Supplementation Studies. Following the grouped set, the 

proposals are organized by province, then subbasin, beginning with Salmon and Clearwater 

in the Mountain Snake Province, followed by the Asotin, mainstem Snake River’s Hells 

Canyon reach, Imnaha and Grande Ronde in the Blue Mountain Province. Within the 

subbasins, the proposals are organized by topic (research, habitat restoration, hatchery) and 

roughly follow the order they were presented to the ISRP at the proposal review workshop.

Multiple Province and Grouped Proposals

Northwest Habitat Institute Mapping Proposals 

1. Project ID: 27003

Characterize and Assess Wildlife-Habitat Types and Structural Conditions for Subbasins 

within the Blue Mountain Province

Subbasin: Blue Mountain

Sponsor: Northwest Habitat Institute

Short Description: Fine-scale wildlife habitat assessment for the Blue Mountain Province 

will provide critical baseline data for planning and monitoring efforts that is consistent with 

the NWPPC 's Subbasin Planning process.

FY02 Request: $201,175

3 YR Estimate: $312,145

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

2. Project ID: 28003

Characterize and Assess Wildlife-Habitat Types and Structural Conditions for Subbasins 

within the Mountain Snake Province

Subbasin: Mountain Snake Province

Short Description: Fine-scale wildlife habitat assessment for the Mountain Snake Province 

will provide critical baseline data for planning and monitoring efforts that is called for in the 

2 subbasin summaries and is consistent with the NWPPC 's Subbasin Planning process.

FY02 Request: $375,935

3 YR Estimate: $1,118,197

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part. A response was not requested for these two proposals. The ISRP has 

reviewed versions of these proposals in each province. The proposals argue for the utility of 

consistent wildlife maps produced at a finer level of resolution than currently available, but 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

17

the benefits of this mapping should first be demonstrated in one subbasin or province 

before funding in multiple areas. The ISRP recommends that only Objective 1 of one 

proposal in one subbasin or province be funded as a test of the maps’ utility.

The proposals make a convincing case for the value of presenting complex habitat 

information in map form. The proponents have previously demonstrated the ability to 

produce high-quality maps at the Columbia Basin level. The proposed mapping would 

develop Landsat maps of wildlife-habitat types throughout the Columbia River Basin. If 

successful, these maps would represent a major step forward in the detail of information 

available to managers as baselines for ecological assessments. The improvement in mapping 

scale (down to 4 Hectare MMU from the Current 100 Hectare) would be particularly useful. 

However, the success of finer resolution maps would be determined by the availability of 

data at this scale. It is unlikely that regional data are of sufficient quality to support Objective 

2. 

Objective 2 should not be funded. The “wildlife and ecological evaluation” would be an 

assessment based only on habitat-type maps and on previous correlations of the habitat 

types shown in these maps with presence of species of wildlife. However, habitat maps 

contain errors and habitat types are necessarily arbitrary and cannot fully capture habitat for 

individual species. Thus, the evaluation adds no additional information to what is provided 

by the habitat maps, and it would undoubtedly be in error on many counts in predicting 

wildlife. It would not provide a very useful assessment of “wildlife species or habitats that 

are limiting” within a subbasin; in fact, it is not clear exactly what is meant by species or 

habitats being limiting. Objective 2 would have managers diagnose errors in the predictions 

that would be generated by the evaluation. Critiquing the predictions would be a useful 

exercise for the proponents but is not likely to be useful to the managers, who might be 

better informed by gathering primary information on species distributions and ecosystem 

function.

The maps would be made available in digital format to wildlife managers for the 

development of “coarse filter” conservation strategies. The utility of the maps to wildlife 

resource selection studies or as a layer in a GIS is unclear. For example, if the location 

(latitude-longitude) of a radio-tagged animal is provided, can the user easily build a table of 

associated habitat types based on the digital map?

Proposal 27003 falls below the quality of previous proposals. It is poorly written, combining 

poor grammar, spelling and punctuation with a confused structure and unexplained technical 

terms. Methods are presented in the background section. Objectives are different in sections 

4 and 5. The “relations to other projects” section refers almost exclusively to other NHI 

mapping projects rather than establishing how the mapping would relate to and complement 

other projects. Also, absent from the proposals is a clarification of their relationship to work 

funded under the NWPPC’s Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment project. The proponents 

have, however, adequately addressed the ISRP’s previous comments on validation and fieldtesting from those reviews. 

A key issue for these mapping proposals remains support from the managers, CBFWA, and 

the scientific community as a whole. Subbasin summaries indicate a need for mapping 

products and in particular, a need for mapping wildlife-habitats, but the summaries in 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

18

themselves do not directly call for specific maps. The proposals did not contain letters of 

support from managers in the respective subbasins. Finally, publications describing the 

methodology for wildlife and ecological evaluation of the habitat maps should be submitted 

to peer review in the wildlife scientific journals such as the Journal of Wildlife Management.

The ISRP suggests that validation and field-testing be made compatible with one of the 

national terrestrial survey efforts. Perhaps an intensification of the National Resources 

Inventory survey sites and data collection protocols would serve the region well. See the 

Proposals #200002300 and #200020116 and the ISRP reviews in the Columbia Plateau.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This activity is currently being funded under the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment 

project at NWPPC. The need for expansion of this project to produce finer resolution 

within each province should be determined through the EDT assessment process. If that 

process determines that finer resolution is necessary for regional planning, then funding for 

expansion should be provided through the NWPPC subbasin assessment effort. Project 

27003 should be reviewed by the Regional Assessment Advisory Committee.

Project ID: 27006

Establishing Baseline Key Ecological Functions of Fish and Wildlife for Subbasin Planning

Sponsor: Northwest Habitat Institute in collaboration with the Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife

Subbasin: Blue Mountain Province - Systemwide

Short Description: This project will develop key ecological function information and 

species range maps for 133 resident fish and 474 wildlife species that occur within the 

Columbia River Basin.

FY02 Request: $153,500

3 YR Estimate: $303,000

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Do Not Fund

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments:

Do not fund. This project proposes to evaluate key ecological functions of species and 

species assemblages in ecosystems and suggests that functional richness and functional 

redundancy can be assessed from the information base they have gathered or will compile. 

Knowledge of species functions in ecosystems and of redundancy versus uniqueness of 

species to ecosystem dynamics is important and has obvious implications for management. 

However, the current proposal is unlikely to provide information of a quality that could 

reasonably be used for management. 

This proposal purports to establish key ecological functions for fish and wildlife to use as a 

baseline in subbasin planning. It proposes to expand the work on KEFs presented by the PI 

and another author in Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington and in the earlier 

stages of this project. It proposes to improve on GAP analysis by more consistent mapping. 

Good background is given on the development of KEFs and their application in the 

estimation of various functional patterns, but the proposal is vague about which ongoing 

work it would enhance. It cites the locations of information supporting the project but does 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

19

not summarize that information. It does not specify relationship to projects other than to its 

predecessor BPA project; surely the project proponents could establish the utility of the 

KEF work they propose in terms of its usefulness to other researchers? The project history 

would be another place that the utility of results to managers and researchers could be 

demonstrated. The potential utility of the approach would be further strengthened if the 

proponents submitted the work for publication in the peer-reviewed literature. Objectives 

are well specified but it does not seem reasonable to infer ecological function that generalizes 

across different contexts on the basis of species lists.

The information to be used to assess ecological function is very general (e.g., an animal 

might be described as an herbivore that carries vertebrate diseases and that physically affects 

soil structure) and does not consider strength or even presence of a functional role for a 

species in a particular area. These “key ecological functions” might provide a useful 

thumbnail sketch of basic ecological traits of a species, but species effects in ecosystems 

have often been shown to be very context-specific. The project will not use or gather any 

primary data on ecological function. Given the many ecological studies that show different 

functional roles for the same species in different communities or under different 

environmental conditions, this approach seems inherently flawed. Further, the data (species 

distributions) needed for such a project are not available for many species in many areas. 

Both lack of data and poor data quality are likely to be major problems for early steps of the 

analysis. The alternate source of distributional information – projecting presence of animals 

from habitat data – introduces circularity into the process and must add significant error to 

the resulting distribution maps and species lists. 

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Although the reviewers suggest that the knowledge of species functions in ecosystems is 

important and has potential management implications, the reviewers question whether the 

information that would be developed could be used for management purposes. The 

managers expressed a concern about the lack of coordination. It may be appropriate for the 

Regional Assessment Advisory Committee to review this proposal.

Bull Trout and Related Resident Fish Proposals

A collection of proposals was submitted for this review that address bull trout. Three clearly 

focus on general life-history studies in different parts of the basin (199405402, 28022, 

28002). Two focus primarily on population dynamics of bull trout (27017, 28014). Other 

projects include brook trout control to help prevent them from interbreeding with bull trout 

(28007), development of a monitoring program for native species in the Salmon River basin 

(28030), and modeling invasion by exotics (28007).

The submitters agreed to an ISRP recommendation and have submitted the work proposed 

in 27017 and 28014 as a single proposal at a single location. The ISRP rejected proposal 

28002 because it did not present a credible study design. Responses to ISRP questions 

provided the review team a basis to conclude that life-history projects 199405402 and 28022 

are technically acceptable. Project 28030 did not meet the ISRP expectations for a 

scientifically credible proposal, and finally, the review panel concluded that project 28007 is 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

20

technically acceptable, but does not provide convincing evidence that it will yield significant 

benefit to management. 

The review team concluded that there is a large amount of information regarding bull trout 

life history in the basin. Because it is not clear that significant benefit accrues to the species 

from more such studies, it is time to begin encouraging submissions with focus on 

imaginative hypotheses and tests regarding factors controlling reproductive success of the 

species across its range.

Project ID: 199405402

Characterize the Migratory Patterns, Population Structure, Food Habits, and Abundance of 

Bull Trout from Subbasins in the Blue Mountain Province.

Sponsor: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Subbasin: Blue Mountain Province

Short Description: To aid in conservation efforts for bull trout, describe their piscivorous 

nature, assess their population and age structure, explore methods to monitor their 

abundance, describe their migratory patterns, and monitor the status of populations.

FY02 Request: $670,804 (CBFWA Recommendation: $402,611)

3 YR Estimate: $1,946,270 (CBFWA Recommendation: $1,380,253)

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (medium priority)

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable but Medium Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments:

Fundable but medium priority. This multi-faceted investigation of bull trout life history and 

population structure in the Grand Ronde subbasin is fundable on a scientific basis, but the 

budget appears high for the work being done, and the proposal is rather weakly supported. 

The proposal is well prepared with respect to background and research approach in most 

respects but has deficiencies regarding some methods. It is of large scale and expensive 

(about $2.5 million over 5 years), excessive for what the investigators propose to accomplish. 

The insights gained from this project should be made available to a broader community, but 

there is a poor record of scientifically peer-reviewed publication. The original proposal 

contained a large budget requests in several places for publication, which may indicate that 

the sponsor also senses publication shortcomings, but the total of such items was 

nevertheless judged excessive in ISRP review. The sponsor’s revised proposal reduced the 

publication budget request and explained that the involved items included data processing. 

The ISRP feels the budget for this is still too high. The ISRP recommends that the Council 

and BPA examine the budget in the project selection and contracting process before 

funding. Where is this project going? It rates a medium priority because production of 

results is low.

The project’s habitat component is restricted to temperature, and the reviewers were 

concerned that this is not sufficient for understanding bull trout abundance and distribution, 

and for restoration and monitoring, but the apparent deficiencies may be covered by Project 

#199202604, and coordination with Project #27017 and/or 28014 is promised.

A clearly defined monitoring plan for bull trout in the Blue Mountain Province is necessary 

to provide context and justification for the EMAP-based surveys. Objective 5 is especially 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

21

tenuous given the problems associated with assessing bull trout abundance from redd 

counts.

The Council should examine the project’s 60% fringe benefit rate. It seems extraordinarily 

high. Other State of Oregon projects in this Province are also high, ranging from 40% to 

60%, whereas, in a sample of most other Blue Mountain and Clearwater proposals, the range 

was 10% to 38%, the great majority lying between 21% and 36%.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Reviewers question when this project will sunset. The EMAP objective has been removed 

from this proposal (budget reflects action).

The Resident Fish Caucus indicates that the proposal does not provide a review of all the 

diet studies conducted for bull trout in anadromous and non-anadromous waters within the 

Blue Mountain Province. The Resident Fish Caucus proposes that revisions of the proposal 

should include a more thorough review of previous diet studies. The majority of the 

hypotheses may have been answered by previous studies. 

The USFWS suggests that “this project would be complimentary to proposal 27017 and 

provide additional needed information in the Grande Ronde. The objectives will 

characterize the fine-scale population structuring of bull trout within the Grand Ronde River 

subbasin; investigate the seasonal movements of fluvial bull trout of the Lostine and Imnaha 

rivers and Catherine Creek; describe the diet of fluvial bull trout in streams with relatively 

few anadromous salmonids present; and employ EMAP protocols to monitor and evaluate 

the status and trends in bull trout populations. This project will help implement reasonable 

and prudent measure 10.A.3.1 and terms and conditions 1.1, 11.2, and 11.A.2.2.b in the 

FCRPS biological opinion. The USFWS recommends the funding of this proposal, 

particularly the EMAP protocols for monitoring and evaluating and seasonal movement 

component be funded. The USFW believes that Proposal 27017 and 199405400 are 

complimentary and will assist in assessing bull trout recovery and implementation of the 

Biological Opinion.”
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

22

Bull Trout Population Assessment and Life History Proposals from USGS

1. Project ID: 27017

Bull trout population assessment and life history characteristics in association with habitat 

quality and land use: template for recovery planning.

Sponsor: Utah Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, USGS

Subbasin: Imnaha

FY02 Request: $469,792

3 YR Estimate: $1,009,568

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

Short Description: Assess bull trout population density, abundance and life history 

characteristics for core areas of the Imnaha Subbasins and evaluate relationships to habitat 

quality and land use based on field evaluations and mark/recapture techniques.

ISRP Final Review Comments (on 27017): 

Fundable in part. A related proposal (28014) from the same sponsors in the Salmon 

subbasin was withdrawn. Reduction to a pilot-study on one Imnaha tributary is 

recommended. In this, the sponsor can test and develop methods to give greater assurance 

of a sound, full-scale study in the long run. In particular, the Pradel mark-recapture method, 

which apparently has never before been applied to fish, should be pilot-tested using the 

single tributary’s replicate study areas. The detection of pit tags with the new detector 

apparatus can also be tested in that tributary; the results should yield insight into 

interpretation of data for determining fish movement and habitat use. Also appropriate for 

pilot study would be the validation of redd count methodology by mark recapture estimates 

and/or other procedures. 

The statistical design presented via proposal and responses was not deemed adequate to 

evaluate critical limiting habitat factors. The movements important in metapopulation 

dynamics are not likely to be defined via the methods proposed and during a study of only 

three years’ duration. The response to questions about replication is still confusing. One 

problem is that there is no indication of the sizes (stream lengths) of the 5 study areas that 

would constitute the replicates within each tributary stream. It is very important that these 

each be of adequate length, taking into consideration such factors as channel width, diversity 

and spacing of channel forms and features, “home range size” of the target fishes 

(encompassing routine day-to-day movements), and seasonal changes in habitat use by the 

fish. The sponsor has not discussed this or even presented any idea of appropriate replicate 

length. Determination of appropriate replicate lengths could be an objective in the pilot 

study. 

The objective of determining survival rates will be difficult, and trying to correlate survival 

and other population parameters with habitat variables will be even more problematic. 

Basically, the within-stream replicates cannot be independent with regard to the fish 

population while the fish are moving significantly, so paired comparisons would be tenuous. 

The reviewers agree that the envisaged basic information on relationships between bull trout 

and their habitat is indeed needed (and future proposals could use the results from this 

project to develop a watershed assessment), but at this point pilot study is required to better 

work out the procedures for making such determinations in this stream system.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

23

A further concern is that the sponsor did not clearly state the extent to which habitat study 

sites (the replicates) would be colocated with the population sampling sites. Some reviewers 

assumed they would be identical (and some of the above comments are predicated on that), 

but others questioned the situation. This might be clarified simply and quickly with Council 

staff and BPA contract officers if the project is funded.

In regard to the original, multi-stream design, habitat variables, sites within streams probably 

will be more correlated with each other than with sites in different streams. Analysis of data 

from this segment of the project will require a hierarchical analysis or demonstration that the 

sites are more or less independent. Another problem is that the Imnaha system contains a 

relatively narrow range of land uses. Therefore, the prospects for relating bull trout survival 

and growth to land use patterns (Objective 6) may not be a good in this basin as in some 

others. On the other hand, perhaps it will be best to conduct the pilot study here where land 

use patterns are not complex. 

The proponents should use a probabilistic procedure for selecting some if not all of the 

study sites. The ISRP strongly recommends that they select sites using the “Oregon Plan” as 

a model. See the proposals, ISRP reviews, and proponent responses for fish, habitat, and 

water quality monitoring in the Salmon subbasin (199107300, 199405000, and 28051). Also, 

see the Council’s draft recommendations on monitoring in the John Day of the Columbia 

Plateau Province (199801600). The proponents are referred to the programmatic section of 

this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, 

and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.

In responding to the ISRP suggestion that (in addition to the project’s quest for baseline 

data) testing of more elegant hypotheses than those embodied in the proposal is needed to 

facilitate bull trout recovery, the sponsor wrote that the project would be testing hypotheses 

but did not specify what they would be.

Given the number of areas in which ODFW and USGS projects on bull trout would be 

complementary, the PIs of both projects should develop an explicit coordination mechanism 

to ensure continuing collaboration and avoid duplication. The response lists several areas in 

which there is potential gain from collaboration; all are described as possible, but only 

hypothetically. Before funding, the PIs need to describe the means by which data collection 

will be coordinated, shared, and formatted in compatible ways so that each project’s analysis 

benefits from the other.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This USFWS suggests that this proposal was designed to develop techniques to assess 

recovery planning and provide information for implementing the biological opinion. The 

proposed work would assess bull trout population density, abundance, and life history 

characteristics for core areas of the Imnaha Subbasin and evaluate relationships to habitat 

quality and land use based on field evaluations and mark/recapture techniques. The USFWS 

suggests the proposed work would “also provide the technical information to develop a 

template for bull trout recovery planning.” The USFWS indicated that the proposed work is 

“needed to evaluate population response to recovery measures within and outside of the 

tributaries.” According to the USFWS, the proposed work would help implement reasonable 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

24

and prudent measure 10.A.3.1 and terms and conditions 11.1, 11.2. and 11.A.2.2.b in the 

FCRPS biological opinion.. 

The USFWS views the proposed work “as an extremely important project for assisting in 

determining bull trout population status and habitat conditions” and believes there is a “need 

to systematically collect critical tributary information on bull trout to help in assessing the 

effects of FCRPS operation.” The USFWS supports the funding of this proposal.

CBFWA did not review Proposal 28014. Per the ISRP's request, the sponsors have 

resubmitted the proposal for review in just one subbasin (i.e., Imnaha Subbasin in the Blue 

Mountain Province (Proposal 27017)).

Clearwater Subbasin

Project ID: 28022

Evaluate Bull Trout Life History in Dworshak Reservoir, N.F. Clearwater River Drainage, 

ID

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Evaluate distribution, habitat use, and movement patterns of bull trout 

(Salvelinus confluentus) in Dworshak Reservoir

FY02 Request: $208,850 (CBFWA Recommendation: $133,000)

3 YR Estimate: $516,850 (CBFWA Recommendation: $399,000)

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority (Obj 4, see comments)\ Recommended Action (all else)

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part; Agree - Objective 4 is High 

Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in Part. The ISRP agrees with CBFWA that objective 4 on entrainment is of high 

priority. The project will study bull trout distribution, habitat use, feeding, and movement in 

Dworshak Reservoir and tributary streams, as well as measure possible entrainment at 

Dworshak Dam. It will consolidate various bull trout activities and funding sources into a 

single project. The project is generally well planned and comprehensive. Its data should 

provide a basis for managing the system to benefit bull trout. The response remedied gaps in 

a generally appropriate manner but added cost that seem excessive.

To meet ISRP concerns, a revised proposal was submitted containing two new objectives (6 

new tasks and one switched from another objective = $41K additional) and augmentation of 

three previously existing tasks ($8K additional). A task (6.2) was added at cost of $10,000 to 

review and apply existing literature that ISRP suggested the sponsor should have been 

familiar with before writing the proposal. The $10K definitely should be cut. The Council 

should scrutinize the budget request.

Further, the ISRP questions the response’s inclusion of an additional 30 tags (another $10K) 

that would archive temperature/pressure data in the reservoir. This might be a good idea but 

is not described in adequate detail. Use of those tags seems a form of gadgetry; the proposal 

and response do not give a clear description of the hypotheses that might be then tested with 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

25

the tags. The reviewers are also skeptical about the feasibility of recapturing fish to recover 

the tag data. How they would be recaptured is not explained. It might be more practical to 

use tags that provide temperature data when the fish's location is recorded, without the 

archival feature and without the need to recapture the fish. 

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project would contribute towards meeting the terms and conditions stated in the 

FCRPS Biological Opinion for Dworshak Dam. Objective 4 of the proposal is considered a 

high priority from USFWS to measure entrainment of bull trout through Dworshak Dam.

This proposal is directly tied to hydrosystem impacts and Terms and Conditions set forth in 

the FCRPS BiOp. The addition of a fixed telemetry site in Dworshak Tailrace substantially 

strengthened the project as a whole, in addition to the success of meeting Objective 4. 

In past studies, the proponents have been used 400 kHz PIT tags. It is unclear in the 

proposal if the project intends on switching over to 134 kHz PIT tags if awarded funding. 

Switching over to the 134 kHz tags would likely provide additional interrogations of 

entrained fish below Dworshak Dam, and would also strengthen the proposal.

 

Through the Subbasin Team Review, Objective 4 of this proposal received a “High Priority” 

ranking while the other objectives were categorized as “Recommended Action.” The 

Resident Fish Caucus suggests that Objective 4 cannot be completed without making the 

following Objectives/tasks High Priority: Task 1.1, Task 1.3, Task 2.1, Objective 3, and 

Objective 4 for a total of approximately $133,000. The remaining proposed work should be 

categorized as Recommended Action.

The USFWS indicates that the proposed work “will help implement reasonable and prudent 

measure 10.A.3.2 and terms and conditions 11.1 and 11.2 in the FCRPS biological opinion.”

Project ID: 28023

Evaluate and Control Brook Trout Populations – Addressing Competition and 

Hybridization Threats in the Clearwater River Drainage, Idaho.

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Biological and physical methods will be utilized to suppress or eliminate 

brook trout populations in area where risk of competition and hybridization with bull trout 

is high.

FY02 Request: $183,800 (CBFWA Recommendation: $153,800)

3 YR Estimate: $547,600 (CBFWA Recommendation: $517,600)

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (Low Priority)

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable (Low Priority)

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable (Low Priority). The project would evaluate stocking of predatory “tiger muskies” 

(sterile muskellunge-northern pike hybrids) in high lakes as a means of controlling brook 

trout (a non-native) which compete with native bull trout. The intent is to eliminate the lake 

populations as sources of brook trout that invade downstream into bull trout habitats. This 

innovative procedure has shown preliminary indications of success elsewhere in the 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

26

Clearwater drainage. Other more routine activities (stream population assessment and 

genetic analysis) will be carried out to aid development of a management plan for native 

salmonids. The idea behind this project seems a good one. The project appears well thought 

out and has an experimental/adaptive management element. ISRP reviewers had concerns 

about project organization and some methodological matters in the original proposal, and 

these were adequately dealt with in the response. However, the reviewers rate the project as 

being of low priority compared with other, more pressing needs in the basin.

The ISRP questioned the sponsor on matters of risk in stocking tiger muskies, then 

discussed at length the sponsor’s response, which was thorough and helpful. The ISRP 

considers the risks and potential disadvantages of stocking tiger muskies in this particular 

situation to be negligible. The use of one non-native to control another non-native should be 

viewed with caution.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

The Nez Perce Tribe doesn't support the objective to stock of tiger muskies.

The Resident Fish Caucus suggests this project addresses one of the primary extinction 

threats to bull trout. The decline and local extirpation of bull trout stocks has been closely 

tied to invasion, competition, and hybridization with brook trout. Much work remains to be 

done on this issue, and this project evaluates one approach to the problem that may prove 

effective in areas where native fish have been displaced by introduced species.

The concept of using an introduced species to combat another introduced species is not 

uniformly accepted as a viable approach among the Resident Fish Caucus. It would have 

been beneficial to the Resident Fish Caucus if a more thorough summary of IDFG’s existing 

tiger musky programs were included in the proposal. Without this summary, the Resident 

Fish Caucus can only recommend a slower approach, looking at longer-term effects of the 

current program before a more aggressive program is implemented.

One issue worthy of discussion is the long-term management of the treatment lakes when/if 

the program is successful. The proposal could be strengthened if an additional objective 

were added to re-establish native species (bull and cutthroat trout) after eradication/control 

is complete. In addition, it would not be acceptable to continue the stocking of tiger 

muskies if a sport fishery develops as a result of this effort. 

The Resident Fish Caucus suggests Task 5.1 and 5.2 should be performed prior to any other 

objectives and indicated that the proposed stocking efforts would likely be subjected to the 

Three-Step Review process.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

27

Salmon River Subbasin

Project ID: 28002

Fluvial Bull Trout Migration and Life History Investigations in the upper Salmon River 

Subbasin

Sponsor: Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Identify the distribution and status of fluvial bull trout populations. 

Identify seasonal habitat use and migration patterns of fluvial bull trout. Determine bull 

trout presence/absence, densities, population status, and spawning times.

FY02 Request: $163,440

3 YR Estimate: $451,440

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments:

Do not fund. A response is not needed because of significant deficiencies in the proposal. 

The proposal is to “fill all data gaps” concerning bull trout distribution, abundance, and 

migration patterns for fluvial bull trout in the upper Salmon River basin. It endeavors to 

justify this new effort based solely on a perceived lack of knowledge, a premise that was not 

convincing to reviewers who would have been more receptive to investigation of specific 

significant hypotheses. The work did not appear linked to the extensive work conducted by 

Thurow, Rieman and Dunham in the state. In addition to a radio-tracking component, the 

sponsor intends to describe distributions and abundances across the sub-basin. No 

argument in presented to justify what seems to be an insufficient sample size for the 

objectives of the radio-telemetry tracking portion of the study. A systematic procedure was 

not presented for estimating abundance or distribution. It is known, as stated, that bull trout 

spawn from mid-August to mid-late September. The proposal includes action to further 

define spawning time, but no reason was provided for the need. 

The literature on bull trout life history contains significant information on adult capture, 

radio tag mortalities, day vs. night snorkeling, and other study methodologies that could 

streamline, fine tune, and focus the proposed study. Lack of discussion and reference to this 

extensive literature and its implications was viewed as a serious deficit for this proposal.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This proposal addresses data gaps in bull trout distribution and life history in the upper 

Salmon River Subbasin. The Resident Fish Caucus suggests this information is needed for 

the development of recovery actions for the Salmon River Bull Trout Recovery Unit; 

however, the geographical scope of this project appears too large for the proposed approach, 

and the 50 fish radio tagging sample seems too small for the size of the subbasin. 

The Resident Fish Caucus suggests a more systematic approach would lend itself well to 

project success. The project could be strengthened by concentrating on one major drainage 

at a time. Each of the 3 drainages (Yankee Fork, Mainstem, and East Fork) should receive 

about 50 tagged fish and 2-3 years sampling effort. It appears the proponents need to 

include more specific information on telemetry equipment to be used, and details such as 

transmitter life, size, frequencies and costs. There may be remote tracking sites currently 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

28

available in the subbasin that could be utilized for this project, and if so, the project 

efficiency could be greatly improved by utilizing them. If there are no remote sites currently 

in place, it would be wise to establish some. The use of data loggers would also narrow the 

focus of equipment manufacturers and save time and money in data collection. Specific 

plans for radio-tracking are lacking in the proposal. Some additional plans need to be 

prepared in regards to tracking methods, frequency, and approach.

“The USFWS feels if the proposal can meet the above concerns and those raised by the 

ISRP, there are elements of the project that warrant funding.”

Project ID: 28030

Salmon River Native Resident Fish Assessment

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Investigate population status and trends, life histories, habitat needs, 

limiting factors, and threats to persistence of all resident native fishes in the Salmon River 

Subbasin. Emphasis of work will be on salmonid fishes.

FY02 Request: $250,000

3 YR Estimate: $650,000

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority (Obj 1); Recommended Action (all else)

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. This is a new proposal by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to 

establish a position, develop a database structure, and conduct distribution and relative 

abundance estimates of bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout, redband trout, and non-game 

fish species in the Salmon River basin. The first objective is to review existing data to 

identify “data gaps.” Subsequently, a detailed work plan would be developed to conduct 

surveys in FY02-FY06 to fill the data gaps. The long-term goal is to initiate a monitoring 

program to track the condition of these species.

Reviewers acknowledge that there is a clear and long-recognized need for basic population 

information on resident native salmonid species, including bull trout, westslope cutthroat 

trout, and redband trout, and any data gathering should include non-native salmonids in 

some fashion. However, the panel is equally aware that the proposal's justification ("little 

current information exists on native resident fishes") is not compatible with the subbasin 

summary's discussion of more than 100 assessments completed to date. It is clear that 

better, not simply more, data are needed.

Because the proposal does not present a work plan, it is difficult for reviewers to be 

supportive of the proposal at this time. Once the detailed work plan is developed, a proposal 

should be developed around it and submitted for review at a future date.

The ISRP recommends that the proponents of the project work with the Oregon, 

Washington, and Montana Provinces to develop monitoring and evaluation procedures with 

common field procedures and probabilistic site selection for the entire Columbia Basin. The 

Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Monitoring Program (Nicholas 1997a, 1997b, 

1999) as implemented in the Oregon coastal coho streams and the Columbia Plateau 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

29

Province is a Tier 2 level monitoring and evaluation program that can serve as a good model. 

Also, see the section on monitoring in the introduction to this report. The ISRP 

recommends that the proponents consider using data protocols recommended in Johnson et 

al. (2001).

Johnson, D. H., N. Pittman, E. Wilder, J. A. Silver, R. W. Plotnikoff, B. C. Mason, K. K. 

Jones, P. Roger, T. A. O’Neil, C. Barrett. 2001. Inventory and Monitoring of Salmon Habitat 

in the Pacific Northwest - Directory and Synthesis of Protocols for Management/Research 

and Volunteers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 211pp.

Data should be made available via STREAMNET.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Objective 1 (plan) is recommended as high priority and the implementation phase should be 

funded pending the completion/review and coordination of all management groups in the 

proposed study area.

Project ID: 28007

Causes and effects of nonnative trout invasions in the Salmon and Clearwater River 

subbasins

Sponsor: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Provide a better understanding of nonnative trout invasions and their 

effects on native salmonids. Deliver models and information for evaluating management 

alternatives. RPA 152 will be most significantly enhanced by this work.

FY02 Request: $64,900

3 YR Estimate: $676,900

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (Low Priority)

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable (Low Priority)

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable (low priority). This is a proposal to develop a series of models to examine causes 

of non-native trout invasions in the Salmon and Clearwater subbasins and to look at genetic 

impacts (brook trout hybridization) and ecological impacts. It is a well-written proposal by 

highly qualified scientists that nicely characterizes the current situation regarding the issue of 

nonnative trout. Reviewers agree with proposal authors that the issue is important and 

urgent. However, neither the proposal (and response) nor the presentation convinced 

reviewers that at the end of the proposed project in 2006, fishery and land managers would 

be better able to make decisions regarding steps best taken to rectify the situation. 

The author is encouraged to develop this approach more fully and submit future proposals. 

To justify FWP funding, the approach should make stronger ties between possible results 

and management options. Work proposed as objective 1, to describe broad-scale patterns of 

native and nonnative salmonid status and distribution, would produce some "preliminary 

predictive models" but the proposal contained no further detail and did not put that effort in 

the context of currently available models. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

30

The ISRP does not disagree that it is important to better understand the basic causes and 

patterns of nonnative trout invasions, in order to, in part, predict the course of those 

invasions yet to occur. However, the panel feels that it is more appropriate that the limited 

Bonneville resources available be used to effect a reversal of the existing legacy of invasions, 

and that our current understanding, while admittedly incomplete, is adequate to begin those 

efforts. 

The ISRP fully concurs with CBFWA review comments.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Reviewers suggest that benefits from this project will persist over the long-term only if the 

results/recommendations can be applied in a management scenario. Presently, there is little 

collaboration with the management agencies (i.e., this research was not sought by the 

managers). The managers acknowledge that the proposal is well written; however, the 

proposed work appears innovative and should be submitted for funding through the 

Innovative Project process. Project addresses RPAs 152 and 183.

The project is designed to investigate the ecological and genetic impacts of nonnative trout 

invasions at various spatial scales in the Salmon and Clearwater River subbasins. The multispatial scale approach by the sponsors could provide comprehensive information on the 

dynamics of trout invasions.

The Resident Fish Caucus agrees with the broad-scale modeling approach (i.e., data 

collection and analysis) of Phase 1 of the study and strongly encourage the sponsor to 

coordinate in a more deliberate fashion with other agencies and ongoing efforts in the North 

Fork Clearwater. In addition, the Resident Fish Caucus suggests the sponsor should use 

available genetics information throughout the major study basins to reduce costs in Phase 3 

of the study. 

The Resident Fish Caucus indicated that much of the data that would be collected as 

described within Table 1, Phase 1 and 2a (occurrence of non-natives and natives in 

watersheds and habitat/landscape characteristics) has been collected for the Clearwater 

National Forest. The Resident Fish Caucus expressed concern relative to whether this 

project addresses the important issue. The Resident Fish Caucus acknowledges that the 

science appears sound, but are unsure whether the results will have management 

implications? The most significant possibility of a project like this would be to develop 

models to help prioritize management alternatives (e.g., habitat restoration) that would 

benefit native species while not benefiting exotic species. The goals and objectives as stated 

in the proposal do not address this issue. The proposal should be rewritten to address 

management implications, and submitted through the innovative process. The Resident Fish 

Caucus questions whether the BPA is the appropriate source of funding for the proposed 

work.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

31

Assessment of Spring/Summer Chinook Habitat in the Grande Ronde 

and Salmon Subbasins

1. Project ID: 27007 

Assessment of spring/summer chinook salmon habitat within the Grande Ronde Subbasin.

Sponsor: USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Utah State University

FY02 Request: $205,000 (CBFWA Recommendation: $0)

3 YR Estimate: $235,000 (CBFWA Recommendation: $0)

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: *Merged with Mountain Snake project 28005

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

and

2. Project ID: 28005

Assessment of spring/summer chinook salmon habitat within the Salmon River Subbasin.

FY02 Request: $395,000 (CBFWA Recommendation: $115,750)

3 YR Estimate: $440,000 (CBFWA Recommendation: $115,750)

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

Short Description: Evaluate and compare attributes of streams utilized and not utilized by 

chinook salmon within the subbasin. Evaluated habitat characteristics would describe low 

gradient stream segments, which foster chinook salmon production.

ISRP Final Review Comments:

Not fundable. The main project goal would be to link an extensive habitat database to 

existing population status information for chinook populations, endeavoring to look at 

habitat attributes and salmonid distributions at finer scales than are typically investigated. 

This would be a very intensive examination of potentially important habitat elements; all 

presently known stream-salmonid habitat variables (and some other variables, such as 

macroinvertebrates and periphyton) seem to be included in the study. Measurements would 

extend back into the riparian zone. 

Although the proposals are clearly written and their authors are recognized leaders in habitat 

research, reviewers felt that a large volume of data, similar to what is sought here, presently 

exists in agency and researcher files. The subbasin summaries note numerous aquatic 

assessments already completed. Additionally, reviewers believe the reasons for differences in 

chinook smolt production among subwatersheds are currently more clearly understood than 

the proposal would suggest. . At the suggestion of the ISRP, the authors in their response 

propose a pilot study intended to relate the presence of chinook salmon to habitat 

conditions in Snake River tributaries. A full proposal including a budget for the pilot study 

was not provided. The cost for the project was set at $100,000 but further details were not 

provided. Even for the pilot study, the authors have not satisfactorily addressed major 

shortcomings that were a problem with the original proposal. The original proposal was 

largely a detailed description of habitat methodology and the authors' responses to the 

ISRP’s questions have done little to obviate this weakness. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

32

This project has little chance of producing useful information. In particular, the biological 

component of the research is weak. The authors have failed to adequately address the ISRP’s 

question concerning the biological dataset that will be used. The proposal would be stronger 

if it specified what fish dataset was intended for use, and how better measurement of habitat 

parameters would help that dataset yield new relationships. A critical element of the 

proposed research is the definition of occupied and unoccupied sites. The authors do not 

provide operational definitions of these terms. Furthermore, the approach of comparing 

habitat that is "occupied" with that “not occupied” may not be meaningful because the 

rearing habitat is not close to being fully seeded. Presence or absence of juvenile chinook 

salmon depends not only on habitat conditions but also on other factors including whether 

successful spawning of adults had occurred in the area, whether a significant storm event 

occurred during incubation, and, for naturally produced fish, whether fish have been stocked 

in the area. The authors do not consider these and other out-of-basin factors in their 

proposal.

What would be the measure of “run strength” or “smolt outmigration?” What is the nature 

of the “index of chinook populations” that would be derived? Tasks A and B remain 

unclear and would require much further elaboration. 

The authors could develop their approach more fully and submit future proposals. 

Subsequent proposal should more specifically address land-use-related habitat hypotheses 

such as that recently identified by Paulsen and Fisher (Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society, May 2001) regarding chinook parr-to-smolt survival. The panel suggests 

that proponents consider making future aquatic habitat data measurement protocols 

consistent with recommendations provided in:

Johnson, D. H., N. Pittman, E. Wilder, J. A. Silver, R. W. Plotnikoff, B. C. Mason, K. K. 

Jones, P. Roger, T. A. O’Neil, C. Barrett. 2001. Inventory and Monitoring of Salmon Habitat 

in the Pacific Northwest - Directory and Synthesis of Protocols for Management/Research 

and Volunteers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 211 pp.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Although this proposal has been identified as a pilot project by the sponsor, select 

components are presently implemented through a USFS project that exists in the upper 

Columbia Basin. In addition, the sponsor indicated that the USFS spends $500,000/year 

collecting such data. Although the USFS has been in communication with the IDFG, the 

USFS has not discussed the proposed work with the SBT due in part to the fact that the 

proposed work will be performed on federal lands. Due to the innovative nature of the 

project the reviewers recommend that the project sponsor submit the proposal for 

consideration in the Innovative Project process. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

33

Adult Salmon Monitoring (19970300, 27019, 28052) 

1. Project ID: 199703000 

Chinook Salmon Adult Abundance Monitoring

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe/Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Implement state-of-the-art technologies to accurately quantify chinook 

salmon spawner abundance in the Secesh River, Lake and Marsh creeks. Adult abundance 

data would allow a measure of recovery threshold abundance of a listed species (NMFS 

2000).

FY02 Request: $1,033,000

3 YR Estimate: $2,719,000

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part (consider with 27019, 28052)

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part. The review team considered projects 199703000 (hydroacoustic system in 

the Secesh River, video in Lake Creek, and video and Vaki equipment in Marsh Creek), 

27019 (hydroacoustic equipment in Minam River), and 28052 (Johnson Creek – weir and 

hydroacoustic equipment) as a unit. Reviewers concluded that existing monitoring elements 

(e.g., Lake Creek video, weir and redd counts in Johnson Creek) should be continued, and 

installation of a single experimental “high tech” application is fundable. The type of 

installation to be tested, however, remains a question. Team members with experience in 

"high-tech" applications, are convinced that existing information shows resistivity counters 

have the greatest promise for applications such as those identified in these proposals. Given 

expert opinion regarding the relative value of present alternatives, the sponsors need to 

provide a convincing case for eliminating a resistivity counter as the installation to be 

evaluated at the chosen experimental site.

The installation needs to viewed as experimental, and should address problems of site 

selection, methods for getting fish into the target area at high flow, variable water conditions, 

cost, and practicality. The counts need to be rigorously verified. The technology has not yet 

proven to be an accurate, dependable method for solving the fish enumeration problems 

identified by project sponsors. If the method is not very accurate, say <95%, some rigorous 

method for assessing detection probability and the factors that influence the bias are 

necessary, and should be described in the proposal.

Verification reliant upon video is not likely to be successful, particularly given the flow 

conditions expected. An alternative plan for verification should be considered. 

The ISRP strongly recommends that the NPT select one representative site and conduct a 3-

year pilot study.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project addresses RPAs 180 and 193.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

34

2. Project ID: 27019 

Adult Salmon Abundance Monitoring

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe/Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Implement state-of-the-art technologies to accurately quantify chinook 

salmon spawner abundance in the Minam River. Adult abundance data would allow a 

measure of recovery threshold abundance of a listed species (NMFS 2000).

FY02 Request: $531,182

3 YR Estimate: $1,688,213

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part (consider with 19970300, 28052)

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

See comments under 199703000. The ISRP recommendation of fundable in part on this set 

of proposals refers to the ISRP recommendation that the NPT select one representative site 

(either Johnson Creek or the Minam River) and conduct a 3-year pilot study. Thorough 

responses were provided to each question. The ISRP continues to have a couple of 

concerns that the proponent should address in their work: comment 2b verification; and a 

longer-term budget concern. Verification reliant upon video is not likely to be successful, 

particularly given the flow conditions expected and used to support the hydroacoustics 

methodology. An alternative plan for verification should be considered. The budget issue 

concerns the longer-term use of contracting to PNNL at the projected level of cost. If 

technical expertise is developed within NPT, then purchase of the equipment maybe a more 

efficient means to implement such programs. 

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

The sponsors suggest estimation of spawning escapement based on redd counts are biased 

and provide imprecise approximations of true escapement (abundance). The sponsors 

indicated that the hypothesis is based on PATH and other literature that have reviewed the 

limitations of redd count accuracy and redd count expansion methods to estimate 

abundance. The inaccuracy in an abundance estimate is also reflected in other parameters 

(growth rate, smolt to adult ratios, recruits per spawner, adult to adult returns, etc). The 

NMFS (2000) Biological Opinion, Viable Salmonid Population paper and other conservation 

literature call for performance standards at the population level to be evaluated in terms of 

abundance and call for more accurate counts of adult abundance. The current project is 

designed to provide adult salmon abundance information. There is concern about the 

impacts of the fish counting station on adult migrations; however, the reviewers agree that 

developing a non-invasive, passive monitoring technique for monitoring adult salmon 

escapements is a high priority. This project addresses RPA 180. Discussion and 

coordination with co-managers will continue on the final plans for validation monitoring in 

the Minam River, monitoring and evaluation, and risk management. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

35

3. Project ID: 28052 

Adult Snake River steelhead monitoring in the South Fork Salmon River Basin.

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe/Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: We propose to initiate collection of baseline steelhead adult abundance 

information critical for determining population status and viability in addition to identifying 

potential management actions needed for Snake River steelhead in Johnson Creek.

FY02 Request: $708,000

3 YR Estimate: $1,677,000

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part (consider with 19970300, 27019)

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

See comments under 199703000. See comments under 199703000. The ISRP 

recommendation of fundable in part on this set of proposals refers to the ISRP 

recommendation that the NPT select one representative site (either Johnson Creek or the 

Minam River) and conduct a 3-year pilot study. This is a proposal to 1.) attempt installation 

and maintenance of a hydroacoustic counting station in Johnson Creek, and 2.) assess 

whether or not the system will yield accurate counts of steelhead entering the system for 

spawning.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Presently, adult steelhead monitoring (i.e., abundance trends of Snake River steelhead ESUs) 

occurs only at Lower Granite Dam. Reviewers suggested that population specific 

information (e.g., status and viability) is needed for the development of management actions. 

The NMFS BiOp (2000) also identified the need for accurate population abundance. This 

project addresses RPAs 179, 180 and 193.

Four-Step Safety-Net Process and Associated Proposals

(projects 28012, 28015, 28055, 28056, and 28057)

Do not fund projects 28012, 28015, 28055, 28056, and 28057; there is need for 

documentation that the Four-Step Safety-Net Process is well coordinated, scientifically 

sound, and consistent across the basin.

Data available for extinction risk assessments are going to provide no more than crude 

estimates of risk. Caution is needed with statements and models that include carrying 

capacity, since it is itself a dynamic value. Confidence in risk estimates will be very low and a 

source of disagreement. The process must be developed via methods that will ensure buy-in 

by all agencies. There must be agreement as to what confidence levels are acceptable before 

an action is taken. Standards need to be defined for the type and quality of data minimally 

required for such assessments, including population and sub-population structure. 

Proposing to obtain only review and comment by the associated agencies cannot be 

expected to produce support for the process.

The process is meant for critically depressed populations. Some populations seem to have 

been identified for consideration before any process was specified to identify “critically 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

36

depressed stocks.” The process, if initiated, should be designed to include a systematic 

process for identifying these stocks across the basin. 

The process assumes that artificial propagation can provide a safety net for critically 

depressed stocks when identified. What database is available from the Snake River to 

provide that confidence? Recent reports including project 199102800 in the Mountain 

Snake Province, suggest that survival of migrants to Lower Granite Dam declines with 

increasing abundance. These results may implicate artificially high densities caused by 

release of hatchery fish as an additional cause for decline of wild fish.

Use of donor stocks was identified in one proposal as a possible need. How can a donor 

stock be considered for use under a program designed to preclude extinction of a local 

population? Another proposal indicated that the process was going to help increase 

abundance in the target population, and it was described as any other project trying to cause 

increase in population size with hatchery fish. 

Fish populations in the Middle Fork Salmon River have declined as a result of problems in 

the migration route or ocean. These problems should be solved rather than acting (use of 

hatchery fish) to further jeopardize fish populations in the Middle Fork. If, at some time in 

the future it can be demonstrated that these populations are in imminent danger of 

extinction, and at the same time it can be shown there will be immediate action to fix 

conditions in the migration route or ocean, it may make some sense to cryopreserve gametes 

or use short-term propagation as “last ditch” efforts to save some of the genetic material, 

but a sound technical basis for the required assessment does not exist.

The last step in the process is development of a HGMP for each propagation program. The 

ISRP’s opinion is that the template for preparation of these documents provides little 

confidence that the strict requirements needed for artificial propagation of endangered 

species will result. The template calls for detailed information concerning how a hatchery 

presently operates and some inquiries as to how the potential impact of the program will be 

reduced. If the 4-step process is to proceed, detailed guidelines for operation of these 

facilities must be developed.

In summary, the ISRP concludes that the 4-step process is not ready to go forward, and may 

even be a flawed strategy. Its technical credibility depends on objective selection of 

populations for safety net consideration, on the availability of information to permit 

development of strategies that will do more good than harm, and on standards for 

management of artificial production. In addition, the process does not seem to be 

coordinated with the subbasin planning effort. None of these elements are in place.

This process would need to be consistent with NMFS’s effort post-Hogan and the Council’s 

subbasin planning effort. They need to do a review of what is possible, to demonstrate with 

data. As proposed and described in the response, the methods are not described in adequate 

detail for scientific review. Given the uncertainty associated with hatchery intervention, the 

region needs an agreed upon standard and approach that is subjected to independent peer 

review and applied across the basin. No agreement exists regarding viability analyses. 

Intervention should include a wide spectrum of management activities including harvest 

management, habitat restoration, etc. The tools chosen should depend on the stock status. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

37

Project ID: 28061

Safety-Net Artificial Production Program (SNAPP)

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Nez Perce Tribe, Columbia River 

Intertribal Fish Commission, Washington Department of Fish and Game, ShoshoneBannock Tribes

Subbasin: Blue Mountain and Mountain Snake Provinces

Short Description: Establish contingency action plans, using best available propagation 

techniques, to prevent extinction of key populations of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead 

while necessary improvements to main-stem passage and tributary habitats are effectuated.

FY02 Request: $523,000

3 YR Estimate: $823,000 

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Reviewed

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: NA - Not Reviewed

ISRP Review Note:

This proposal was submitted after the response deadline and was not reviewed by the ISRP. 

The proposal combines all 4-step process proposals into one unified effort to with the goal 

to ensure that overlap and redundancy are avoided. 

Salmon Subbasin

Project ID: 28057

Four-Step Safety-Net Plan for Lower Salmon River A-Run Steelhead

Sponsor: Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: This project is identified under hatchery RPA 175. The goal of this 

project is to determine whether intervention is necessary to prevent the decline or immediate 

extirpation of Lower Salmon River A-run steelhead, and to identify management 

alternatives.

FY02 Request: $73,422 (CBFWA Recommendation: $0)

3 YR Estimate: $89,220 (CBFWA Recommendation: $0)

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Withdrawn, defer to SNAPP proposal

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: NA - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

See general comment on Four-Step Safety-Net Plan proposals.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

38

2. Project ID: 28056

Four-Step Safety-Net Plan for South Fork Salmon River B-Run Steelhead

Sponsor: Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: This project is identified under hatchery RPA 175. The project goal is 

to determine whether intervention is necessary to prevent the decline or immediate 

extirpation of South Fork Salmon River B-run steelhead, and to identify management 

alternatives.

FY02 Request: $73,422 (CBFWA Recommendation: $0)

3 YR Estimate: $89,220 (CBFWA Recommendation: $0)

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Withdrawn, defer to SNAPP proposal

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: NA - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

See general comment on Four-Step Safety-Net Plan proposals.

3. Project ID: 28012

Four-Step Planning to Identify Safety-Net Projects for Idaho Steelhead

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: This proposal addresses RPA 175. Planning process identified by 

NMFS to prioritize populations and determine strategies to alleviate near-term extinction 

risk.

FY02 Request: $206,200 (CBFWA Recommendation: $0)

3 YR Estimate: $656,200 (CBFWA Recommendation: $0)

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Withdrawn, defer to SNAPP proposal

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: NA - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

See general comment on Four-Step Safety-Net Plan proposals.

4. Project ID: 28015

Benefit/Risk Analysis to Promote Long-Term Persistence of Chinook Salmon in the Middle 

Fork Salmon River

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Assess relative benefits and risks associated with current population 

status, genetics and potential for management actions

and implement appropriate action to ensure long-term persistence of chinook salmon in the 

Middle Fork Salmon River subbasin.

FY02 Request: $156,726

3 YR Estimate: $181,726

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Withdrawn, defer to SNAPP proposal

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: NA - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

See general comment on Four-Step Safety-Net Plan proposals.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

39

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

The Middle Fork Chinook population is regarded by the managers as depressed. In 2000, 

IDFG initiated a process to use a population viability model developed by the University of 

Idaho (UI). The UI model was not referenced in the proposal. The IDFG suggests that 

some of the proposed work has been performed by the IDFG. There is a current effort to 

combine all Four-Step process proposals (the Four-Step process is mandated in the BiOp) 

into one unified effort to ensure that overlap and redundancy are avoided. 

Defer to the consolidated SNAPP proposal, in which the unique tasks from this proposal 

have been maintained. If the consolidated SNAPP proposal does not received funding, this 

proposal should be considered as a stand alone proposal for funding, as it was the only 

“original RPA 175/SNAPP type proposals” specifically addressing chinook salmon. The 

IDFG PVA analysis was not coordinated with NPT and was not available at time of 

proposal submittal. 

Clearwater Subbasin

5. Project ID: 28055

Four-Step Safety-Net Plan for Upper Lochsa River B-Run Steelhead

Sponsor: Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: This project is identified under hatchery RPA 175. The goal of this 

project is to determine whether intervention is necessary to prevent the decline or immediate 

extirpation of upper Lochsa River B-run steelhead, and to identify management alternatives.

FY02 Request: $73,422 (CBFWA Recommendation: $0)

3 YR Estimate: $89,220 (CBFWA Recommendation: $0)

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Withdrawn, defer to SNAPP proposal

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: NA - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

See general comment on Four-Step Safety-Net Plan proposals.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

The five SNAPP proposals address RPA 175. There is a current effort to combine all 4-step 

process proposals into one unified effort to ensure that overlap and redundancy are avoided. 

Refer to Safety Net Artificial Production Program proposal.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

40

Project ID: 28026

Develop HGMP’s for LSRCP Programs to address artificial production reforms identified in 

the FCRPS Biological Opinion and other regional processes.

Sponsor: US Fish and Wildlife Service, Lower Snake River Compensation Plan

Subbasin: Blue Mountain and Mountain Snake Provinces

Short Description: Assess LSRCP Programs to identify needed artificial production reform 

measures, coordinate proposed reforms among co-managers, select and define potential 

reforms, and develop funding implementation.

FY02 Request: $856,292

3 YR Estimate: $1,755,399

ISRP Final Recommendation: NA

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: NA

ISRP Final Review Comments:

A scientific review is not applicable. This does not lend itself to technical review, but from a 

scientific point of view the ISRP is not convinced that HGMP’s will actually provide 

guidance on protecting ESA listed stocks. See general comments on 4-step process.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Development of the HGMP's (for the LSRCP program) are directed specifically to address 

hatchery reforms identified in the FCRPS BiOp (RPA 169). These reform measures are 

identified as reform measures that go beyond existing (or non-existing since they have not 

completed their hatchery production BiOp.) NMFS jeopardy criteria (related to hatchery 

production programs) to obtain additional (off-site mitigation) benefits to get the 

hydrosystem out of jeopardy. The HGMP was chosen by NMFS, NWPPC, and Federal 

Caucus as the format for addressing those reforms. These reform actions (unless developed 

in the normal LSRCP process and fundable under our existing budget) are now mandated to 

the hydrosystem action agencies (not the LSRCP program). The proposal outlines a 

coordinated approach to 1) assess our existing programs, 2) identify potential reform 

measures, 3) coordinate those measures with the other ongoing regional processes (ESA, US 

v Oregon, NWPPC, etc. along with our tribal trust and compensation responsibilities), and 

4) develop HGMP's for agreed upon reform measures. Presently, funding does not exist in 

the LSRCP budget to accomplish this task (and it is not a LSRCP funding responsibility). 

This proposal would provide all of the LSRCP co-managers the staff to accomplish the 

above objectives within the processes we are legally mandated to participate in to address 

off-site mitigation. Existing LSRCP programs are not legally mandated to develop HGMP's. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

41

Project ID: 199703800

Preserve Salmonid Gametes and Establish a Regional Salmonid Germplasm Repository

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management

Subbasin: Blue Mountain and Mountain Snake Provinces

Short Description: Preserve Salmonid Gametes through cryogenic techniques to maintain 

genetic diversity in populations with low levels of abundance and at high risk of extirpation. 

Establish a Regional Salmonid Germplasm Repository for populations listed under the ESA.

FY02 Request: $1,279,000

3 YR Estimate: $4,383,000

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments:

Fundable in part, continuing sperm preservation at a level similar to current efforts, but not 

to expand and elevate this to a Regional Center without strong evidence that it truly is 

scientifically sound and broadly supported by a number of groups and agencies. This needs 

a high level scientific review such as by the ISAB that focuses on the state of the science of 

this strategy and its application in the FWP. It is time for a thoughtful analysis of what the 

FWP wants to accomplish in gene conservation, whether or not cryopreservation continues 

to be a useful tool, and whether an ever-increasing commitment to this program is consistent 

with that goal. 

To date, the project has cryopreserved male gametes from over 2,700 chinook salmon and 

steelhead. The proposal would continue and expand that program roughly four-fold after 

construction of a new building, evaluating additional basins for gamete collections from 

salmonids (resident and anadromous), other fishes such as lamprey and burbot, and 

amphibians.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Academic, management, and regulatory agencies have discussed and conferred the merits of 

a regional program such as what is proposed in this work. This project addresses RPA 177. 

The significant increase in budget is due to capital construction of a regional germ plasm 

repository facility.

Idaho Supplementation Studies

Background

Supplementation of natural stocks is not a mandated mitigation objective, but has become 

an important part of the hatchery programs. Idaho has outplanted (i.e. off-site releases) over 

5.5 million chinook fry, approximately 8 million smolts, and 8,000 adults into the Salmon 

River drainage since 1977 (IDFG et. al. 1990). During the same period, over 17 million fry, 

3 million smolts, and 2,000 adults were outplanted into the Clearwater River drainage (Nez 

Perce Tribe et. al. 1990). In spite of widespread outplanting activities there has been little 

scientific evaluation of the efficacy of supplementation on rebuilding or influencing natural 

salmon populations both in Idaho and basin wide. Furthermore, despite these hatchery 

mitigation efforts, anadromous fish stocks in Idaho continued to decline. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

42

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) spearheaded development of the Idaho 

Supplementation Studies (ISS) to address questions identified in the Supplementation 

Technical Work Group (STWG) Five Year Workplan (STWG 1988), as well as help define 

the potential role of supplementation in managing Idaho's anadromous fisheries and as a 

recovery tool for the basin. The goal of the Idaho Supplementation Studies is to evaluate 

various supplementation strategies for maintaining and rebuilding spring/summer chinook 

salmon and steelhead populations in Idaho and to develop recommendations for using 

supplementation to rebuild naturally spawning populations. 

Projects directly involved in the ISS are:

1. Project ID 198909800. Idaho Supplementation Studies. Sponsor: Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation. 

Subbasin: Salmon.

2. Project ID 198909801. Evaluate Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers (ISS). 

Sponsor: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Idaho Fishery Resource Office. 

Subbasin: Clearwater.

3. Project ID 198909802. Evaluate Salmon Supplementation Studies in Idaho 

Rivers- Nez Perce Tribe. Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe. 

Subbasin: Salmon.

4. Project ID 198909803. Salmon Supplementation Studies in Idaho- ShoshoneBannock Tribes. Sponsor: Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. 

Subbasin: Salmon

5. Project ID 199005500. Steelhead Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers. 

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species 

Conservation. 

Subbasin: Clearwater

6. Project ID 199604300. Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement 

Project. 

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Salmon. 

ISS coordinates field activities and data collection efforts with the Idaho Habitat/ Natural 

Production Monitoring project (199107300). ISS also coordinates with and transfers data to 

projects in the Salmon River subbasin including the Monitoring Smolt Migration of Wild 

Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon (199102800), Salmon River Habitat 

Enhancement (9405000), and Salmon River Production Program (199705700). ISS also 

works closely with the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) to coordinate on 

hatchery supplementation treatments and evaluations. 

Presently, there are eleven state and federal anadromous hatcheries operating in Idaho: 

Clearwater, Oxbow, Rapid River, McCall, Sawtooth, Pahsimeroi, Dworshak, Kooskia, 

Hagerman National, Niagara Springs, and Magic Valley. There are also three satellite rearing 

ponds: Powell, Red River, and Crooked River operated in conjunction with the Clearwater 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

43

Hatchery. These hatcheries have the combined capacity to produce 8.5 million spring 

chinook smolts, 2 million summer chinook smolts, 6.7 million A-run steelhead O. mykiss

smolts, and 4 million B-run steelhead smolts annually. 

ISS Study Design

The ISS study design called for a minimum of 15 years (three generations) of research 

(Bowles and Leitzinger 1991). Sampling was initiated in 1991, and implementation began in 

1992. Supplementation effects are monitored and evaluated by comparing juvenile 

production and survival, fecundity, age structure, and genetic structure and variability in 

treatment and control streams of similar ecological parameters.

Due to the large geographic scope of this study, study streams were partitioned among four 

resource management entities for implementation. These include Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game, Nez Perce Tribe, Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service-Idaho Fishery Resource Office. Allocations were based on interest, integration with 

ongoing programs, cost efficiency, logistics, and, to a lesser extent, relative equity. 

Approximately one-half of the study will be implemented by Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game through the ISS contract with BPA. The Nez Perce Tribe and Shoshone-Bannock 

Tribe have similar commitments to ISS, each comprising approximately 20% of the study. 

Both of these components rely heavily on integration of existing or proposed tribal 

programs. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Idaho Fishery Resource Office implements 

about ten percent of the project. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game is the lead 

agency regarding project development, coordination, and implementation.

The ISS Experimental Design was completed and published in 1991. Baseline data 

collection and development of supplementation brood stocks (Phase I) began in 1991. Over 

a period of about five years, supplementation brood stocks were developed for seven 

hatchery trap/release locations as identified in the experimental design:

Artificial Production Facilities 

1. Sawtooth Fish Hatchery – Upper Salmon River

2. Pahsimeroi Fish Hatchery – Pahsimeroi River

3. McCall Fish Hatchery – South Fork Salmon River

Clearwater Fish Hatchery Satellites

4. Crooked River

5. Red River

6. Powell (Colt-killed Creek)

7. Clear Creek – Kooskia National Fish Hatchery 

As adult fish began to return from the Phase I supplementation brood stock juvenile 

releases, the project progressed into Phase II. Phase II utilizes the returning adults to 

supplement natural origin recruits in treatment streams and maintains supplementation 

broodstocks for juvenile production and release. Juvenile fish releases through brood year 

1996 include 1,281,755 fish in the Clearwater River basin and 1,954,048 fish in the Salmon 

River basin. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

44

This project is now transitioning from Phase II to Phase III, monitoring the effects of 

supplementation. In Phase III juvenile releases from supplementation brood stocks are to 

be eventually terminated, returning adults from prior juvenile releases are released to 

supplement spawning of natural origin recruits, and monitoring of production and 

productivity response variables in control and treatment streams continues. In 2000, juvenile 

releases were maintained at levels similar to releases in 1999. 

Treatment (e.g. supplementation in general, supplementation with a particular life stage, 

supplementation with a particular brood source) effects will be tested directly by hypotheses. 

In general, treatments will be applied for one to two generations (5-10 years) following 

approximately one generation of pretreatment data. Population responses to 

supplementation will be monitored a minimum of one generation (5 years) following 

supplementation. It is important that the original study design be maintained. 

Reducing sample size (number of treatment streams) can potentially impair the sensitivity of 

the design. Reducing to five treatment streams provides only a 60% chance of detecting a 

25% change in production, whereas we would still have over 95% chance of detecting a 50% 

change. 

Related projects

Several additional projects are related to the ISS. The monitoring and evaluation portion of 

the Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement project (199604300) conducts the 

juvenile emigration and survival, adult escapement (weir and spawning ground surveys), and 

genetic monitoring associated with the ISS project in Johnson Creek. The Nez Perce Tribal 

Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation project (198335003) collects the data associated with 

the ISS project in Lolo Creek, Eldorado Creek, and Newsome Creeks in the Clearwater 

River subbasin. The Nez Perce Tribe Monitoring of Listed Stock Chinook Salmon 

Escapement project (BPA Number 199703000) operates a video camera and weir to 

passively monitor and enumerate adults returning to Lake Creek and upper Secesh River. 

This project collects data on adult abundance and migration timing of chinook salmon. 

ISRP Final Recommendation: 

Not fundable until the ISRP concerns are adequately addressed. The experimental design has 

not been adhered to over the years and from the response to our preliminary review, the 

ISRP is not confident it will be in the future. In fact, the current experimental design is not 

adequately defined. There does not appear to be commitment to treatment durations, 

particularly to the Phase III portion of the study design, where supplementation ceases, so 

that treatment effects can be analyzed. 

From communications that occurred during the ISRP site visit, it appears the project 

sponsors should be able to specify timelines for termination of the treatments for each 

treatment stream. A table needs to be developed for Phase III implementation that describes 

when the treatments will stop on a stream-by-stream basis. In the past, sponsors have not 

stuck with agreed upon control streams. How confounded are the treatment and control 

streams? This points to the need for submittal of a certified statistical design. 

Projects 198909800 through 198909803 and 199005500 are fundable after adequately 

addressing the following constraints. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

45

1. A written protocol for complete statistical analysis, certified by an independent statistician 

team should be presented to Council during the contracting period. The ISRP is not 

comfortable with the implications that “problems” with the study design can be “fixed” 

during the statistical analysis stage. Considerable thought and effort should be placed in 

planning the statistical analyses of these potentially controversial data before final decisions 

are made on criteria for stopping supplementation and before data are available.

2. The protocol for statistical analysis must indicate how straying of hatchery fish into 

“control streams” and “partial treatments” will be analyzed. For example, the response to 

the ISRP preliminary review indicated that the straying rate of hatchery fish into the Secesh 

River from 1996-2001 varied from 0.83% to 14.71%. This is in fact, de facto 

supplementation. It is unclear to the ISRP how partial treatment and de facto 

supplementation of control streams will be addressed in the statistical analysis of the ISS.

3. Development of a specific stream-by-stream protocol and timetable for implementation of 

Phase III of the ISS. Included in this is the immediate cessation of supplementation 

activities in Johnson Creek (see comments below on proposal 199604300) and inclusion of 

Johnson Creek once again as a control stream in the ISS experimental design. 

1. Project ID: 198909800

Idaho Supplementation Studies

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Evaluate various supplementation strategies for maintaining and 

rebuilding spring/summer chinook salmon populations in Idaho. Develop recommendations 

for using supplementation to rebuild naturally spawning populations.

FY02 Request: $996,726

3 YR Estimate: $2,971,726

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable until the ISRP concerns are adequately addressed. See ISRP comments on the 

set of Idaho Supplementation Studies above.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

46

2. Project ID: 198909801

Evaluate Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers (ISS)

Sponsor: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Idaho Fishery Resource Office

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Evaluate various supplementation strategies for maintaining and 

rebuilding spring/summer chinook salmon populations in Idaho. Develop recommendations 

for the use of supplementation to rebuild naturally spawning populations.

FY02 Request: $126,320

3 YR Estimate: $406,320

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable until the ISRP concerns are adequately addressed. See ISRP comments on the 

set of Idaho Supplementation Studies above.

3. Project ID: 198909802

Evaluate Salmon Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers- Nez Perce Tribe

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Evaluates hatchery supplementation as a recovery - restoration tool for 

spring and summer chinook salmon. Quantifies key population status and performance 

variables, including early-life history and smolt- to adult survival rates.

FY02 Request: $676,476

3 YR Estimate: $1,998,214

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable until the ISRP concerns are adequately addressed. See ISRP comments on the 

set of Idaho Supplementation Studies above.

4. Project ID: 198909803

Salmon Supplementation Studies in Idaho- Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Sponsor: Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Evaluate various supplementation strategies for maintaining and 

rebuilding spring/summer chinook populations in Idaho. Develop recommendations for 

the use of supplementation to rebuild naturally spawning populations.

FY02 Request: $213,569

3 YR Estimate: $683,658

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable until the ISRP concerns are adequately addressed. See ISRP comments on the 

set of Idaho Supplementation Studies above.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

47

5. Project ID: 199005500

Steelhead Supplementation Studies in Idaho Rivers

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Clearwater, Salmon

Short Description: Evaluate the feasibility of using artificial production to increase natural 

steelhead populations and to collect life history, genetic, and abundance data from wild 

steelhead populations in Idaho.

FY02 Request: $686,307

3 YR Estimate: $2,009,759

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable until the ISRP concerns are adequately addressed. See ISRP comments on the 

set of Idaho Supplementation Studies above. Excellent proposal. Presentation, which was 

articulate and clear, could have been superb through the use of better presentation materials 

and graphics. The ISRP remains concerned about non-marked hatchery fish confounding 

monitoring and experiments. 

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

The five projects above address RPAs 174, 182 and 184.

6. Project ID: 199604300

Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation Enhancement Project

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Enhance and monitor a weak but recoverable stock of native summer 

chinook salmon in Johnson Creek. Construct facilities for adult collection and holding, 

juvenile rearing and smolt acclimation.

FY02 Request: $4,410,100

3 YR Estimate: $6,740,688

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Do not fund, except for the monitoring and evaluation portion needed to tie in with Idaho 

Supplementation Studies. See ISRP comments on the set of Idaho Supplementation Studies 

above.

Comments specific to this proposal are as follows: 

Do not fund, except for the monitoring and evaluation portion needed to tie in with Idaho 

Supplementation Studies. Monitoring and evaluation should be funded at an appropriate 

level so that the Johnson Creek 'control' stream data continue to be integrated into the ISS 

experimental design. As initially planned, the Idaho Supplementation Study (ISS) was 

probably the best supplementation study among the Provinces. It should be continued. It is 

important that the Idaho Supplementation Studies be completed following a rigorous 

approved experimental design that is little changed from the original design. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

48

The ISRP recommends that supplementation activities in Johnson Creek cease immediately 

at least for the duration of the ISS study design, allowing Johnson Creek to continue to be 

used as a ‘control’ stream, even given the recent limited supplementation of it. Johnson 

Creek was switched from a control stream to a treatment stream in 1996 on the basis of very 

low adult returns, the calculated high risk of local demographic risk of extinction, and severe 

underseeding of available habitat. Supplementation activities in Johnson Creek are planned 

for approximately 25 years. The proposal notes that adult carrying capacity for Johnson 

Creek is estimated at 1,681 summer chinook. While on the site tour this summer, we were 

told that 1,700 adult chinook returned to Johnson Creek this year. Thus, supplementation 

does not appear warranted in Johnson Creek at this time on the basis of low adult numbers 

and underseeding of available habitat at least through the duration of the ISS experiment. 

In 2001, the first returning fish from the limited Johnson Creek supplementation effort 

(1998 – 2000) returned; however, we note that all returning hatchery-produced salmon were 

jacks and they constituted only a portion of the 2001 returning jacks. Next year (2002), twoocean adults including products of the supplementation efforts will be returning to Johnson 

Creek. However, the Johnson Creek weir can be used to intercept returning adults, and 

allow passage only of wild naturally spawned chinook salmon into Johnson Creek. This will 

allow Johnson Creek to remain in the ISS study as a control stream. As currently planned in 

project #199604300, Johnson Creek is neither a treatment, nor a control stream in the ISS 

because the criteria for stopping supplementation has been changed and do not appear to 

match the timetable in the ISS. 

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project is considered a BASE project by NMFS.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

49

Salmon River Subbasin Proposals

Project ID: 199107300

Idaho Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Identifies limiting factors and recommends methods to improve adultto-smolt and smolt-to-adult survival of chinook salmon and steelhead. Provides long-term 

monitoring data to determine the effectiveness of recovery actions and population status.

FY02 Request: $831,000 (CBFWA Recommendation: $831,000)

3 YR Estimate: $2,526,000 (CBFWA Recommendation: $2,745,000)

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The proponents addressed the need for development of a long-term Columbia 

River Basin (including the Salmon subbasin) probabilistic sampling plan(s) for monitoring 

anadromous fishes, resident fishes, water quality, and other habitat quality parameters. The 

proponents also provided assurance that common monitoring methods are being used in the 

Salmon subbasin (e.g., project #199405000) and that data and metadata will be provided to 

Streamnet and other databases. Given the importance of following a more appropriate 

sampling strategy, this amended project should be assigned priority status. 

The implementation of a high-level coordinated monitoring and evaluation plan for aquatic 

resources throughout the Columbia River Basin would likely be an unprecedented advance 

in research and a distinct advantage to the resource. Collocation of study sites for fish 

counts, aquatic habitat, and water quality would enhance the region’s ability to draw 

meaningful statistical conclusions from the array of M&E projects currently underway. The 

Nez Perce Tribe and the IDFG Department could have lead roles in development of such a 

plan (see the response to the initial ISRP review of Project 28051 Assess and Monitor 

Steelhead in the Middle Fork Salmon River Subbasin).

The proponents should interact closely with Project 199801600 in the Columbia Plateau (Jim 

Ruzycki and Richard Carmichael, ODFW, “Monitor Natural Escapement and Productivity 

of John Day Basin Spring Chinook Salmon.” ODFW revised this proposal to create a 

comprehensive plan to include all monitoring and evaluation for all anadromous salmonid 

lifestages and habitats in the John Day Basin. The M&E program in the John Day Basin is 

apparently developing as a model for the Oregon section of the Columbia Basin and is being 

carefully reviewed by agencies in Washington. The ISRP recommends that the proponents 

consider using aquatic habitat data protocols recommended in Johnson et al. (2001) 

(Johnson, D. H., N. Pittman, E. Wilder, J. A. Silver, R. W. Plotnikoff, B. C. Mason, K. K. 

Jones, P. Roger, T. A. O’Neil, C. Barrett. 2001. Inventory and Monitoring of Salmon Habitat 

in the Pacific Northwest - Directory and Synthesis of Protocols for Management/Research 

and Volunteers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 211pp).
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

50

The ISRP continues to believe that the project needs to undergo a programmatic review, 

perhaps in conjunction with review of similar projects in Oregon, Washington, and 

Montana. Monitoring and evaluation needs may be satisfied by the current subjectively 

selected survey sites and monitoring program during a period of low seeding levels, but the 

ISRP doubts that the project will meet the expectations and needs of the Province in the 

long term if anadromous fish abundance increases. It would be foolish to abandon the 

current design in the short term, but likewise foolish to not start integrating components of a 

design that allows statistical inferences to be made to the entire Snake Subbasin, other Idaho 

Subbasins, and the Columbia Basin. 

The ISRP strongly supports the commitment in the amended proposal to work with the 

Oregon, Washington, and Montana Provinces to develop monitoring and evaluation 

procedures with common field procedures and probabilistic site selection for the entire 

Columbia Basin.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project addresses RPAs 180 and 190.

Project ID: 199102800

Monitoring smolt migrations of wild Snake River sp/sum chinook salmon

Sponsor: National Marine Fisheries Service

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Collect time series information to examine migrational characteristics of 

wild ESA-listed Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon stocks. PIT tag wild chinook 

salmon parr annually; and subsequently monitor as parr/smolts at stream traps and river 

dams.

FY02 Request: $350,000

3 YR Estimate: $1,050,000

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. All concerns and suggestions were adequately addressed in the response. We 

appreciate the care in responding to our initial review and assurance of co-operation between 

the referenced projects. We apologize for some misunderstanding on our part in the initial 

review. This is a good smolt-monitoring project that provides invaluable basic data for 

management decisions affecting the stocks involved. 

The presenter indicated that the project recorded two to three times higher parr-to-smolt 

survival when parr densities in the streams were lower. This finding, if replicated in time and 

space, has major implications for management of hatchery supplementation outplanting and 

monitoring of adult escapement. This component of the project should be given high 

priority.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Reviewers question the duration of projects of this type and its duplicative nature. In 

addition, the reviewers question how much this type of work should be continued. These 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

51

concerns have also been expressed, in the past, by the Fish Passage Center. This project 

addresses RPA 190.

Project ID: 199902000 

Analyze the Persistence and Spatial Dynamics of Snake River Chinook Salmon

Sponsor: USDA Forest Service- Rocky Mountain Research Station

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Results will advance current understanding of the relationship between 

the distribution, pattern, and persistence of chinook salmon and landscape patterns. **Note: 

the most appropriate RPA for this project is RME Action 180.

FY02 Request: $112,410 (CBFWA Recommendation: $215,194)

3 YR Estimate: $351,242 (CBFWA Recommendation: $645,582)

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part. The intent of the project is to understand the factors determining the 

distribution of spawning chinook salmon, based on observations made in the Middle Fork 

Salmon River. The proposition is that spawning distribution depends on the amount of 

habitat, the quality of habitat, and its proximity to other habitat. This project has been 

underway since 1995, and has received BPA funding since 1999. 

The proposal contained no description of results obtained to date and the response's brief 

repeat of results from the proposal and a copy of a technical report published in a 

conference proceedings in 2000 are minimally acceptable. Reviewers’ support for the 

proposal might have been strengthened by a discussion of results obtained to date and plans 

for publication. More importantly, the proposal states that the project would require 

additional years of field work, through 2004, to follow a complete generation or more of 

spawning fish to complete the analysis of spatial structure. The scientific justification for 

such continuation of this project is weak. The current seven years of data on distribution of 

spawning activity contains substantial variation in total numbers of spawners. This variation 

seems to be a necessary component for study of the author’s hypotheses, not a limiting 

factor. There is no assurance that the number of spawners will continue to increase beyond 

that in 2001, and thus the data collected through 2001 may be the best available in the near 

term to meet the author’s objectives. The ISRP recommends that funding should not be 

provided for additional on the ground data collection. 

Reviewers recommend funding in part, to conduct aerial surveys in support of project 28001 

and to analyze and prepare for publication the data from 1995-2001. 

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project addresses RPA 180. During this past year, this project has been funded at 1/2 

the required budget (i.e., $50,000 of the needed/approved $100,000). The sponsors 

indicated is they only receive $50,000/year in the upcoming years the funding level will be 

insufficient to allow them to continue the proposed work in the original proposal. 

Reviewers suggest that the Project meets critical needs for long-term monitoring, indexing, 

acquisition of life history information, and analysis of the spatial structure of a wild chinook 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

52

salmon population. The reviewers identified simulates between Objective 4 and work 

proposed in proposal 28035. Sponsors of Project 199902000 recognized that the existing 

tasks (i.e., strategies to achieve the task) were inadequate to meet Objective 4. Although 

completing the existing tasks under Objective 4 would produce useful preliminary 

information, the analysis would be incomplete and difficult to defend in the physical sciences 

community. As a result, Objective 4 was refined into a Proposal 28035. The refined 

approach for addressing Objective 4 examines the physical controls of basin hydrology and 

sediment supply on spawning habitat availability at watershed scales. The extensive spawning 

habitat data available for the Middle Fork Salmon River through Project # 199902000 

provides an excellent test site for the physical model. The model is robust, however, and 

once validated can be applied to any river basin. The model could have immediate use for 

identifying critical habitats and examining scenarios for best management practices for 

maintaining or optimizing spawning habitat. Moreover, the model would provide a physically 

based, defensible method for assessing spawning habitat and prioritizing management 

actions at watershed scales. 

Per the reviewers’ request, the following tasks from Proposal 28035 should be considered 

for funding through Objective 4 of 199902000:

 

Objective 4. Relate the location, size, and quality of spawning patches to basin geomorphic 

features. 

Task a. Compile databases to describe basin landscape features.

Task b. Develop models to predict patch distribution and empirically validate models.

Subtask b.1. Predict grain size and the spatial distribution of suitable spawning habitat as a 

function of channel hydraulics and boundary shear stress.

b.1.1. Determine baneful flow depth and channel slope at watershed scales.

b.1.2. Determine grain sizes suitable for chinook spawning.

Subtask b.2. Modify predictions of grain size and spawning habitat availability to account for 

channel type and consequent hydraulic roughness.

b.2.1. Predict and field verify channel type, hydraulic roughness, and consequent 

modification of surface grain size.

Subtask b.3. Quantify the effects of sediment supply on surface grain size and spawning 

habitat availability.

 b.3.1. Identify sources and magnitudes of sediment supply.

b.3.2. Model the long-term effects on spawning habitat availability due to sediment input and 

routing through the channel network.

Subtask b.4. Validate predictions of grain size and spawning habitat availability.

The cost savings resulting from the merger of these two Projects would total $30,841 

($18,636 for Project # 28035 and $11,845 for Project # 199902000). If this project is not 

fully funded, Objective 4 is the lowest priority task.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

53

Project ID: 28035

Geomorphic Controls on Watershed-scale Availability of Chinook Salmon Spawning Habitat 

in the Salmon River 

Sponsor: University of Idaho, USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Quantify geomorphic controls on watershed-scale availability of 

sediment sizes suitable for chinook spawning.

FY02 Request: $133,625 (CBFWA Recommendation: $0)

3 YR Estimate: $400,875 (CBFWA Recommendation: $0)

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Do not fund as stand alone project. See project 199902000.

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. The project proposes to quantify geomorphic controls on the availability of 

sediment sizes in the Middle Fork Salmon River by assessing validation of a geomorphic 

model that incorporates sediment grain size, relationship to slope and shear stresses. 

Scientifically the proposal appears sound and would likely result in the ability to more rapidly 

assess, by remote sensing, the presence/absence of suitable-sized spawning gravel (in this 

case for chinook salmon). Project sponsors provided in the response additional discussion 

of the general applicability of the results, and how the results might be used to address 

several different management situations. That said, reviewers were not convinced that the 

approach would have substantial utility in the Columbia system, where there is a relatively 

high level of awareness of the location of available spawning substrate, to the extent that 

most individual chinook redds are located by ground or aerial survey. A revised proposal 

may be appropriate for the systemwide solicitation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

 This project should be incorporated into project number 199902000. See the comments for 

project 199902000.

Project ID: 28001

Evaluate Factors Influencing Bias and Precision of Chinook Salmon Redd Counts

Sponsor: USDA Forest Service- Rocky Mountain Research Station

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Results will assess redd count bias and precision and will have important 

implications for improving chinook salmon redd surveys across the Snake River 

basin.**Note: the most appropriate RPA for this project is RME Action 180.

FY02 Request: $198,738

3 YR Estimate: $626,522

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable as amended with high priority. Project sponsors provided thoughtful responses to 

reviewer comments. We note that success of this project apparently depends on funding 

some tasks in project #199902000.This is an excellent research proposal to evaluate biases 

and variation in common methods of conducting redd counts. The proponents appropriately 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

54

identify their objectives as meeting the intent of Action 180 in the 2000 Biological Opinion 

that specifically calls for funding of Tier 1 and Tier 2 studies to collect data for population 

status monitoring.

The insights derived from this research could have important applications for improving 

redd counts and assessing adult escapements currently conducted by other entities across the 

Snake River basin and, in fact, for the entire Columbia Basin.

In 1999, two of the current proponents submitted a proposal entitled “Evaluation of a 

Mark-Resight Survey for Estimating Numbers of Redds” with BPA Project #20055. The 

ISRP recommended the project for funding and commented: “A strong proposal that 

provides a comparison between aerial and ground surveys of redds. This research is much 

needed and should result in improved technique.” We continue to support this improved 

proposal. Funding for the project was deferred, in part, because of the extremely low 

escapements in 1999 and 2000. With anticipated increased escapements in the future, the 

proponents should be able to meet their objectives.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

RPA 180 - Over 50% of the redd counts in the Middle Fork of the Salmon River are 

conducted via air. This ongoing research is allowing for the estimation of the precision that 

is associated with aerial and ground counts. The ability to identify the factors that could be 

influencing the precision of the counts is essential due to the fact that an aerial approach to 

counting redds is the only feasible method to count redds in the Middle Fork. The managers 

have identified this research as essential for future management activities. 

Project ID: 28034

Chinook Salmon Smolt Survival and Smolt to Adult Return Rate Quantification, South Fork 

Salmon River, Idaho

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Monitor smolt production and adult escapement in the South Fork 

Salmon River with PIT-tag detections to provide SARs and R/S ratios as performance 

measures.

FY02 Request: $660,000

3 YR Estimate: $1,890,000

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (med priority)

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable but Medium Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

The proponents adequately addressed the ISRP concerns. This is a good research proposal 

with the primary goal to calculate and monitor smolt-to-adult returns (SARs) and recruits per 

spawner ratios (R/S) of summer chinook salmon in the upper South Fork Salmon River 

basin. Study design has been carefully considered including obtaining statistical estimates of 

the necessary sample sizes to achieve useful results. Completion of this study, integrated with 

other ongoing studies in the basin, should allow estimation of South Fork Salmon River 

Basin (SFSB) juvenile survival, adult returns, SARs, and R/S (recruits per spawner). -The 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

55

proponents should ensure that their data and metadata are made available via STREAMNET 

or other suitable electronic database.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project addresses RPA 180.

Project ID: 28051

Assess and Monitor Steelhead in the Middle Fork Salmon River Subbasin

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Assess current population status, dynamics and genetics of steelhead in 

the Middle Fork Salmon River subbasin.

FY02 Request: $416,147

3 YR Estimate: $1,250,402

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not Fundable – A similar program, managed by IDFG, has existed in the basin for many 

years although it does not sample at as many sites as planned in the present proposal. 

Sponsors, however, did not provide a convincing argument that additional samples are 

necessary. Sponsor’s insist there is need for data to estimate population viability, but no 

detailed outline of methods for obtaining these data was provided. Details of how the 

genetic information is to be used in such an analysis were not provided. Problems associated 

with such an analysis when sub-populations are severely depressed were not considered. 

Viability estimates require definition of population structure (distribution and abundance of 

sub-populations), and quantification of the interaction between sub-populations, but 

strategies and detailed methods for obtaining these data were not described. Absent the 

above, the proposal cannot be considered technically sound.

The ISRP recommends that sponsors of this project and researchers from IDFG consider 

working together to develop a new, collaborative proposal based on the information that 

IDFG and others have accumulated, that is directed to goals and objectives that are generally 

accepted as key to management of Middle Fork steelhead, and is designed to redirect the 

present and any new sampling found to be necessary to a strategy that includes probabilistic 

site selection (see The Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Monitoring Program, 

Nicholas 1997a, 1997b, 1999, for a helpful model).

The ISRP strongly supports development of a combined program for Idaho, Oregon, 

Washington, and Montana Provinces for compatible monitoring and evaluation procedures 

with common field procedures and probabilistic site selection for the entire Columbia River 

Basin. Implementation of such a high-level coordinated plan throughout the Columbia River 

Basin would likely be an unprecedented advance in research and a distinct advantage to the 

resource. Co-location of study sites for fish counts, aquatic habitat, and water quality would 

enhance the region’s ability to draw meaningful conclusions from the array of M&E projects 

currently underway.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

56

Proposals should be developed in close collaboration with Project 199801600 in the 

Columbia Plateau, “Monitor Natural Escapement and Productivity of John Day Basin 

Spring Chinook Salmon.” ODFW revised this proposal to create a comprehensive plan to 

include all monitoring and evaluation for all anadromous salmonid life-stages and habitats in 

the Oregon portion of the Columbia River Plateau Province. The proponents are referred to 

the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic 

Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and 

Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Although the IDFG has completed genetic analyses in this area, this project would 

complement and expand what has been completed to date. This project addresses RPA 179 

and 180.

Project ID: 28009

Smolt Condition and Adult Returns: An Indirect Method of Assessing the Potential 

Mitigation Benefits of Nutrient Enhancement Projects

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Proposes the development of a standard weight equation for chinook 

salmon and steelhead trout smolts. The equation will provide a method to determine if the 

condition of Snake River smolts is poor due to the lack of marine-driven nutrients.

FY02 Request: $44,600

3 YR Estimate: $44,600

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. The sponsors acknowledge that population density, and many other variables 

are likely to affect smolt size and condition, but they did not show how they would assess 

their relative influences; an assessment that must be addressed before the project is 

technically credible. The data could be examined and assessed, in at least a preliminary way 

to see if they show some promise given the plethora of confounding variables. Such an 

examination should be possible in much less than a year and within the agency’s existing 

program. If that analysis shows some real promise and attracts the attention of managers, a 

proposal to develop a more rigorous analysis could be developed. Establishing a relative 

weight equation is a good idea, but it would be better done by one of the more 

comprehensive nutrient enhancement projects.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Although the reviewers expressed concern regarding a lack of reference (in the proposal) as 

to how the results from this work would be transferred, the sponsors indicated that it was an 

oversight. The sponsors acknowledged that cooperation from the states, federal agencies, 

and tribes will be required to collect the required data. As a result, dissemination of the 

information to the cooperators as well as the rest of the Columbia River Basin will be 

expected. Project addresses RPA 190.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

57

Project ID: 28054

Evaluation of Pisces Fish Protective Guidance and Monitoring System

Sponsor: Balaton Power, Inc.

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Guide fish and monitor water conditions and fish passage

FY02 Request: $1,060,000 (CBFWA Recommendation: $0)

3 YR Estimate: $1,060,000 (CBFWA Recommendation: $0)

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Defer to Upper Snake Province

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: NA - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. Although proposed testing of the device would occur in a tributary of the 

middle Snake River (thus the basis for the CBFWA suggestion to defer to Upper Snake 

Province), it appears that it would be better served in a systemwide or innovative review. 

This proposal needs to identify guidance problems that can be overcome by using this 

equipment. A convincing argument needs to be made that this equipment has benefits that 

are not available with other technology. Both proposal and presentation focused nearly 

exclusively on the technology rather than the application.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Not part of this province - referred to Upper Snake Province. Project sponsor should 

resubmit proposal in the Upper Snake Province solicitation.

Project ID: 28011

Incidental Mortality in Selective Sport Fisheries

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Conduct literature review and scoping for a contemporary study of 

incidental mortality rates in selective sport fisheries.

FY02 Request: $200,000

3 YR Estimate: $700,000

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments:

Do not fund. This is a request for funding to develop a proposal for estimating impact of 

catch and release fishing on non-hatchery salmon and steelhead in the Snake River. The 

background includes a statement that “Early work in the Snake River basin led to the 

conclusion anadromous adults could be released in selective fisheries with acceptable 

impacts (Pettit 1977).” The present proposal should have included what about that 

assessment is faulty and how its shortcomings (and shortcomings of other studies) will be 

overcome with a new study.

This issue has systemwide implications and a cooperative Columbia Basin wide study may be 

more appropriate. The mainstem and systemwide solicitation will begin in late fall and 

winter of 2001. A detailed proposal could be prepared in cooperation with other interested 

parties for the mainstem or systemwide solicitation.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

58

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Addresses RPA 167. The reviewers believe this proposal should be submitted for review 

through the Systemwide/Mainstem Province review due to systemwide implications. 

Project ID: 28006

Tag and evaluate PIT-tag retention in sub-yearling chinook salmon

Sponsor: Biomark, Inc.

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: We propose to PIT tag 12,000 sub-yearling chinook salmon as part of 

an IDFG NATURES study being conducted in 2002. Additionally, we will determine the 

rate of PIT-tag shedding in sub-yearling salmonids from 24 hours post-tagging to 30 days 

post-tagging.

FY02 Request: $82,044

3 YR Estimate: $82,044

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (Medium Priority)

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable (Medium Priority)

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable at medium priority. They should sub-sample with a group held longer; e.g. at least 

6 months. The study will apparently provide information on tag loss over time for one 

realization of levels of these factors (i.e., one species, a fixed hatchery practice, limited range 

on size, etc.). The rate of tag loss and time at which tag loss becomes negligible may depend 

on these factors. If data are collected on individual fish (size, fat content, etc.) there may be 

sufficient variation to evaluate the effects of some of the factors, but not all. The present 

study may serve as a pilot project, but apparently a more comprehensive experimental design 

is needed for full evaluation of the problem.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Thousands of fish of this size are tagged and released on a yearly basis; however, the 

managers have not expressed a concern regarding tag retention during this time period. 

Some reviewers suggest that research similar to what is being proposed may have already 

been performed by the agencies or tribes. Addresses RPA 174. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

59

Project ID: 199700100

Captive Rearing Project for Salmon River Chinook Salmon

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Develop captive rearing techniques for chinook salmon and evaluate the 

success and utility of captive rearing for maintaining stock structure and conservation levels 

of adult spawners in three drainages.

FY02 Request: $750,482

3 YR Estimate: $4,050,482

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (low priority)

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable but Low Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable, but low priority – Sponsors provided reasonable and detailed answers to 

reviewers’ questions and comments. Questions remain, however, about the need to alter the 

performance traits of the captive brood to make them similar to fish in nature. These 

characters are largely dependent on environment so characteristics of fish reared in

hatcheries will reflect those conditions, and of fish produced in nature will reflect those 

conditions. Detailed and careful work to produce fish with similar characteristics from 

either set of conditions is certain to require a continuing, and long-term effort, and in the 

view of some reviewers, perhaps a flawed strategy. Sponsors need to reassess what they are 

doing in his project. It appears from the review that the project will never be “complete.”

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

The results from this work will significantly benefit the target populations. This project has 

had significant peer review and is guided by a technical oversight committee. This project is 

considered a BASE project by NMFS in regards to the 2000 Biological Opinion. This 

project should eventually be tied into the Safety Net Artificial Production Program (SNAPP) 

process.

Redfish Lake Sockeye Program

All projects underway to preclude extinction of Stanley Basin sockeye salmon should be 

subjected to review by “outside experts.” An oversight committee exists, but they are 

viewing the program as a series of funded projects that need to be forged into a recovery 

strategy. An independent review could attempt to answer several questions including the 

following. Is it now possible to depend on Sawtooth Hatchery to supplement production 

from the associated lakes? Does the captive broodstock program remain a critical part of 

the program? After several years, attempts to increase survival of sockeye salmon via lake 

fertilization cannot provide convincing evidence that fertilization should continue; should it 

continue? 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

60

1. Project ID: 199107200

Redfish Lake Sockeye Salmon Captive Broodstock Program

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Establish captive broodstocks of Redfish Lake sockeye salmon. Spawn 

captive adults to produce eggs, juveniles, and adults for reintroduction and future 

broodstock needs. Evaluate juvenile out-migration and adult returns by release option.

FY02 Request: $853,229

3 YR Estimate: $3,044,520

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (low priority)

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable (but Low Priority)

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable, but low priority -- The project sponsors prepared detailed and responsive answers 

to reviewer questions and comments. The program benefits from the authors’ participation 

in the program.

The ISRP does not question the credentials of the technical oversight panel or of experts 

brought in to provide input on specific aspects of the program. The ISRP does, however, 

remain committed to a detailed and rigorous review of this large and expensive program by a 

team of outsiders directed to address the performance and continuing need for each element 

of the program.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project is considered a BASE project by NMFS since it contributed to the baseline 

survival of sockeye salmon during the generation of the Biological Opinion. Some managers 

believe the project goals/target could be firmer. 

2. Project ID: 199204000

Redfish Lake Sockeye Salmon Captive Broodstock Rearing and Research

Sponsor: National Marine Fisheries Service

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Provide a safety net captive broodstock program for Redfish Lake 

sockeye salmon. Provide prespawning adults, eyed eggs, and smolts to aid recovery of this 

ESA-listed endangered species in Idaho

FY02 Request: $1,600,000

3 YR Estimate: $3,191,200

ISRP Final Recommendation: NA

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: NA

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not applicable. Scientific issues are not central to the decision. This is the NMFS captive 

rearing program in support of the Stanley Basin sockeye salmon program. The need for this 

project is integrally linked to that program. Part of the request is to purchase a freshwater 

hatchery that is presently leased, near Manchester, WA, to support the program. The 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

61

expectation on behalf of project sponsors is that they will need this facility for the sockeye 

program during the next decade. Sponsors feel that the property owner can cancel the 

present leasing arrangement at any time, thus jeopardizing the program. 

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project is considered a BASE project by NMFS since it contributed to the baseline 

survival of sockeye salmon during the generation of the Biological Opinion. The NMFS is 

currently under a lease that has contract language that allows for the lease to be terminated 

with a 90 day notice, language that subsequently gives the owner flexibility for purposes of 

selling the property. Presently, the owner of the property is actively marketing the property 

as "for sale." The property, which has been identified as desirable for development, is 

located in Kitsap County, one of the fastest growing counties in the Washington. The NMFS 

conducted a survey of other existing facilities throughout western Washington and identified 

this site as the most acceptable based on issues such as water availability, water quality, etc. 

The market analysis by NMFS indicated that the property is worth $850,000 for a lease 

purpose. Presently, there are no other hatcheries that could provide the facilities required to 

raise this particular group of fish. 

3. Project ID: 199107100

Snake River Sockeye Salmon Habitat and Limnological Research

Sponsor: Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Enhance and monitor freshwater rearing habitat for juvenile Snake 

River sockeye. Evaluate the effects of nutrient addition and fish stocking on the lake's 

ecosystems and growth and survival of planted juvenile sockeye.

FY02 Request: $441,369

3 YR Estimate: $1,370,558

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part at a reduced level to develop and implement an operational plan based on 

what they judge can be concluded from the results obtained to date. Further research is not 

likely to produce substantial additional information in the near future. Results are highly 

variable, some suggesting a benefit and others no-benefit. Stanley Lake is mentioned as a 

reference location, but the data for that lake are limited to limnological observations.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project addresses RPAs 184 and 185.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

62

Salmon River Subbasin Habitat Restoration and Protection Proposals

Project ID: 199401500

Idaho Fish Screen Improvement

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Enhance passage of juvenile and adult fish in Idaho's anadromous fish 

corridors by consolidation and elimination of irrigation diversions. Minimize adverse fish 

impacts of irrigation diversion dams by screening pump intakes and canals.

FY02 Request: $1,000,000

3 YR Estimate: $3,148,050

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable if the proponents include the monitoring data shown at the presentation and, if 

they report on the maintenance protocols. A response to the ISRP was not requested; the 

ISRP concerns can be addressed by the Council in the project selection process or BPA in 

the contracting process. The Washington program has an established protocol for 

effectiveness monitoring that may provide a good model. This would ensure consistency 

across the basin. The proposal is adequate for multiyear funding or until completion in 2005. 

This is an excellent proposal to continue an expensive fish-screening program. There 

appears to be good collaboration among agencies and landowners. The proposal notes that 

screening should be complete by 2005.

The primary criticism in the FY00 review by the ISRP was the lack of monitoring and 

evaluation of results. The reviewers suggested incorporating monitoring and evaluation 

protocols and benchmarks into the project. The current proponents state that several 

screens were monitored by catching all fish diverted from the irrigation canal back to the 

river via the by-pass pipe. Six fish screens on the Lemhi River by-passed 841 fish in 150 days 

of the 1997 irrigating season. Two screens passed 632 (98%) steelhead during the irrigation 

season on the Pahsimeroi River. However, there is no indication of an appropriate 

consistent monitoring and evaluation protocol (e.g., systematic sample survey for screen 

effectiveness) that can be repeated over time. Perhaps a systematic sample of projects could 

be visited each year such that all are surveyed over a 5-year period. The ISRP does not 

expect a research level monitoring and evaluation scientific study. Tier I monitoring for 

effectiveness of the project, as described in the introduction to this report, should be 

sufficient. It may be sufficient to have a regular schedule for checking effectiveness of 

previous projects, some periodic search of irrigation ditches downstream of screens, 

monitoring of water temperature returning from irrigation ditches, etc. The Washington 

protocol may serve as a good model.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

A new position has been established/filled to develop and implement an M&E program. In 

addition, an element of the program will be to construct and maintain fences around the
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

63

screening facilities. This program is essential to the continued protection/management of 

protected species/populations. This projects addresses RPAs 149 and 500.

Salmon Basin Soil and Water Conservation Proposals

1. Project ID: 199202603

Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project Administration/Implementation Support

Sponsor: Idaho Soil Conservation Commission and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Provide local coordination and guidance for implementation of on-theground projects that improve and enhance anadromous and resident fish habitat.

FY02 Request: $285,364

3 YR Estimate: $870,364 

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

This collection of numbered proposals are fundable in part for support of the administrative 

objectives under 199202603. The other objectives and five new proposals are too premature 

to be reviewed from a scientific point of view at this point in time. Necessary funds and 

direction should be provided for project 199202603 so that over the next 3 years 

prioritization of projects and planning, including watershed assessments, are completed.

An analysis of the amount of water and bank protection that realistically can be restored 

should be made. Specialists, such as those presently being consulted, could use this 

information and attempt to predict what channel characteristics and dynamics might be 

expected from the expected water and bank restoration. Such an analysis can also show 

where actions are needed to facilitate development of more favorable fish habitat, and 

provide a basis for prioritizing projects. Responses to reviewer comments indicated that the 

proponents are working with channel specialists from the University of Idaho to complete 

the first steps described above. Successful demonstration that these initial steps have been 

completed and incorporated into the program should be prerequisite to continued funding.

The ISRP appreciates the commitment to develop a more unified monitoring and evaluation 

program. These attempts should be coordinated among other projects with aquatic and 

terrestrial monitoring responsibilities. See the ISRP reviews and proponent’s responses to 

ISRP initial concerns on project proposal #28018. The proponents are referred to the 

programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic 

Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and 

Evaluation.

The Lemhi has laudatory involvement from local stakeholders, as well as a functioning 

technical committee in place. 

In the review of project 28019, the ISRP recommends that projects dealing with animal 

feeding operations in the Upper Salmon basin be considered for funding as part of Project 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

64

#199202603 and related proposals submitted by the Custer and Lemhi Soil and Water 

Conservation Districts. Those projects either have or are developing criteria for effective 

prioritization of projects for benefit of fish in the subbasin. The ISRP recommends that the 

Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project give priority to identifying key feeding operations 

and to coordinating remediation with their owners and with the ISDA and IOSC and other 

funding sources.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project addresses RPAs 152 and 154. The reviewers are curious how the administrative 

costs in this proposal tie in with the significant administrative costs included in project 

numbers 28036, 28037, 28038, 28039, and 28040. Watershed assessments have been 

requested for the past several years. Are those assessments being completed?

2. Project ID: 28036

Holistic Restoration of Critical Habitat on Non-federal Lands in the Pahsimeroi Watershed, 

Idaho

Sponsor: Custer Soil & Water Conservation District / Idaho Governor's Office of Species 

Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Collaborative effort to implement projects on non-federal lands that are 

effective at improving habitat conditions (and survival rates) for native anadromous and 

resident salmonids in the Pahsimeroi watershed, Idaho.

FY02 Request: $2,606,341

3 YR Estimate: $7,926,041

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

See comments on project 199202603.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Addresses RPA 149, 150 and 154. Similar to the ISRP's review, the CBFWA reviewed 

Proposals 28036, 28037, 28038, 28039, 28040 and 199901900 as a collection of proposals. 

Except for proposal 28039, all the proposed work would protect and enhance spawning 

habitat. Proposal 28039 would protect a migration corridor that is also characterized by the 

presence of rearing habitat, habitat types that do not exist in the other watersheds. The 

reviewers and project sponsors are in agreement with the ISRP regarding the development 

of a well-defined watershed assessment; however IDFG expressed concern that landowner 

support could be lost if additional planning efforts were required during the next couple of 

years at the expense of implementation. Recognizing that nearly 90% of the spawning 

activities occur on private lands, IDFG realizes landowner participation is essential to the 

management and conservation of the resources. As a result, managers have spent over a 

decade developing working relationships with private landowners through extensive 

planning processes. Based on their working relationships with the landowners, the managers 

indicated that requiring the development of assessments prior to implementing actions that 

have already been discussed/planned with the landowners will result in the loss of public 

support and subsequently the inability to manage the areas that have been identified as 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

65

critical through a decade of planning. Although the proposals have new project numbers 

they are ongoing projects (i.e., 199401700, 199306200, 19960700). The BPA COTR, who 

was present during the review, indicates that these proposals are not characterized by a 

change of scope. Although the tasks are considered a high priority, there is concern among 

CBFWA reviewers about the size of the proposed budgets and the ability to implement 

actions at the proposed rate. In each proposal, a professor, graduate student and writing 

contractor are identified. Are these separate individuals for each project? Could cost savings 

be achieved through coordination of these projects during funding? The budget for the 

implementation phase should be refined, as appropriate, based on the results of the 

assessment. The budget needs reconciling in terms of cost of assessments and scheduling of 

implementation tasks. 

3. Project ID: 28038

Holistic Restoration of Critical Habitat on Non-federal Lands, East Fork Salmon Watershed, 

Idaho

Sponsor: Custer Soil & Water Conservation District / Idaho Governor's Office of Species 

Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Collaborative effort to implement projects on non-federal lands that are 

effective at improving habitat conditions (and survival rates) for native anadromous and 

resident salmonids in the East Fork Salmon watershed, Idaho.

FY02 Request: $2,608,084

3 YR Estimate: $7,879,984

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments:

See comments on project 199202603. Descriptions given during field tour convinced 

reviewers that Shoshone Bannock Tribe has been doing a good job of communicating with 

East Fork landowners. This suggests that this program would be more effective with their 

involvement.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Addresses RPA 149, 150, and 154. See comments for Project Number 28036.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

66

4. Project ID: 28040

Holistic Restoration of Critical Habitat on Non-federal Lands, Upper Salmon Watershed, 

Idaho

Sponsor: Custer Soil & Water Conservation District / Idaho Governor's Office of Species 

Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Collaborative effort to implement projects on non-federal lands that are 

effective at improving habitat conditions (and survival rates) for native anadromous and 

resident salmonids in the Upper Salmon watershed, Idaho.

FY02 Request: $2,567,545

3 YR Estimate: $7,847,045

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

See comments on project 199202603.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Addresses RPA 149, 150, and 154. See comments for Project Number 28036.

5. Project ID: 28039

Holistic Restoration of Habitat on Non-federal Lands, Middle Salmon-Panther Watershed, 

Idaho

Sponsor: Lemhi Soil & Water Conservation District / Idaho Governor's Office of Species 

Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Collaborative effort to implement projects on non-federal lands that are 

effective at improving habitat conditions (and survival rates) for native anadromous and 

resident salmonids in the Middle Salmon-Panther watershed, Idaho.

FY02 Request: $1,863,326

3 YR Estimate: $5,688,526

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

See comments on project 199202603.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Addresses RPA 149, 150, and 154. See comments for Project Number 28036.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

67

6. Project ID: 28037

Holistic Restoration of Critical Habitat on Non-federal Lands in the Lemhi Watershed, 

Idaho

Sponsor: Lemhi Soil & Water Conservation District / Idaho Governor's Office of Species 

Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Collaborative effort to implement projects on non-federal lands that are 

effective at improving habitat conditions (and survival rates) for native anadromous and 

resident salmonids in the Lemhi watershed, Idaho.

FY02 Request: $3,238,682

3 YR Estimate: $9,839,182

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments:

See comments on project 199202603.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Addresses RPA 149, 150, and 154. See comments for Project Number 28036.

Project ID: 199901900

Holistic Restoration of the Twelvemile Reach of the Salmon River near Challis, Idaho

Sponsor: Custer Soil & Water Conservation District/Idaho Governor's Office of Species 

Conservation.

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Work holistically to restore the channelized Salmon River corridor to a 

natural meandering form in balance with watershed processes that will restore geomorphic 

diversity, reduce bank erosion, lower summer temperatures and improve critical fish habitat.

FY02 Request: $1,844,000 (CBFWA Recommendation: $1,844,000)

3 YR Estimate: $5,158,000 (CBFWA Recommendation: $5,412,000)

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part for study of the importance of temperature as the potential limiting factor 

in the proposed study reach and to pursue passive activities such as purchase of priority 

easements and fencing projects. Temperature modeling similar to that alluded to in items 5 

& 6 of the response, as well as additional physical and biological watershed assessment, will 

be crucial in assessing potential benefits of the project, including components of the heavy 

construction work.

It is clear that the agencies involved have indeed done a nice job in getting local landowners 

poised to "collaborate on a single vision and to consider the reach in a holistic sense". 

Unfortunately, it is not clear to the ISRP that enhancement of anadromous fish populations 

will necessarily follow from all of the tasks. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

68

A watershed assessment should indicate the priorities of tasks in this project. For example, 

if high stream temperature generated upstream is the key limiting factor, the heavily 

engineered approach proposed in project may be secondary in priority. Evidence that this 

reach provides a number of high quality thermal refuges and assessment of the potential to 

provide more should be given. 

The proponents are referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the 

specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on 

Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Addresses RPA 149 and 152. Similar to the ISRP's review, the CBFWA reviewed Proposals 

28036, 28037, 28038, 28039, 28040 and 199901900 as a collection of proposals. These 

budgets are a significant portion of the total Salmon subbasin budget and need additional 

scrutiny. The reviewers and project sponsors are in agreement with the ISRP regarding the 

need for the development of a well-defined watershed assessment; however the managers 

expressed concern that landowner support could be lost if additional planning efforts were 

required during the next couple of years at the expense of implementation. Recognizing that 

nearly 90% of the spawning activities occur on private lands, the managers realize landowner 

participation is essential to the management and conservation of the resources. As a result, 

the managers have spent over a decade developing working relationships with private 

landowners through extensive planning processes. Based on their working relationships with 

the landowners, the managers indicated that requiring the development of assessments prior 

to implementing actions that have already been discussed/planned with the landowners will 

result in the loss of public support and subsequently the inability to manage the areas that 

have been identified as critical through a decade of planning. Although the proposals have 

new project numbers they are ongoing projects (i.e., 199401700, 199306200 19960700). The 

BPA COTR, who was present during the review, indicates that these proposals are not 

characterized by a change of scope, however there was significant disagreement with this 

statement. Although the tasks are considered a high priority, there is concern among 

CBFWA reviewers about the size of the proposed budgets and the ability to implement 

actions at the proposed rate. In each proposal the same writing contractor and the 

University of Idaho is identified. Are the U of I employees separate individuals for each 

project? Baseline M&E (i.e., juvenile counts and redd counts since 1998 and physical data 

collection since 1985) data is being collected through IDFG activities. Detailed M&E plans 

have not been developed to date but will be developed as the project moves forward. Data 

collected to date show that rearing populations are higher then elsewhere and that by 

opening the side-channels the population will greatly benefit. The sponsor understands a 

watershed assessment is important and indicated that other agencies are working towards 

performing the activity. Considering the magnitude of implementation proposed, the 

sponsor should seek CREP implementation funding as cost share as has been done by 

similar SWCD proposals in the Columbia Plateau Province. See comments for Project 

28036.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

69

Project ID: 28016

Restoration of the Yankee Fork Salmon River

Sponsor: Custer Soil & Water Conservation District, Idaho Governor's Office of Species 

Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Restore the natural river channel characteristics, floodplain function, 

sediment regime, and aquatic habitat within the dredged reach of the Yankee Fork. 

Reconnect the remaining quality habitat, thereby increasing the biological integrity of the 

basin.

FY02 Request: $799,785

3 YR Estimate: $3,213,505

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable at low priority subject to existence of a conservation easement that limits future 

development of lands associated with the stream channel restoration and completion of a 

watershed analysis that continues to support the feasibility of the project. The ISRP 

appreciates the detailed and straightforward responses to our questions and concerns. The 

fishery benefits on this project may be relatively low. The impacted area is a relatively short 

stretch of moderately high gradient. The primary chinook salmon rearing area is upstream, 

and passage doesn’t seem to be impeded. This is an expensive project and the ISRP 

questions whether BPA funding is appropriate. 

To assist in establishing a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are referred 

to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic 

Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and 

Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Although IDFG identified the Yankee Fork as a major source of sedimentation to the 

mainstem Salmon River, reviewers question the benefit/cost issue. The reviewers suggest 

that the proposed work appears expensive and are concerned about the ability to achieve 

proposed goals in a timely manner. The work proposed is high priority, there are some 

concerns about the cost of implementation. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

70

Project ID: 28008

Riparian Conservation Easement Purchase of Scarrow Property on Lake Creek a Tributary 

to the Secesh River, Idaho.

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Acquisition of sensitive riparian area to protect water quality above wild 

summer chinook spawning grounds.

FY02 Request: $68,500

3 YR Estimate: $68,500

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (medium priority)

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable but Medium Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable - medium priority. This acquisition offers marginal immediate benefit to 

anadromous fish but would provide fairly good long term protection to this riparian area, the 

last private land in the subwatershed. There is apparently some misunderstanding on the part 

of the ISRP or CBFWA. The CBFWA response indicates that the property would be 

purchased, but the ISRP understanding is that the project would provide a conservation 

easement on part of the property. The ISRP would recommend higher priority for this 

project if a conservation easement could be purchased on the entire 60 acres. If funded, the 

project should have a plan for Operations and Management of the property with indication 

of required funding if any. In addition, plans should be included for monitoring and 

evaluation of the effectiveness (Tier 1) of the conservation easement over time with 

indication of required funding if any. 

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This proposal addresses RPA 150. The reviewers identified this proposal as important 

because it would provide for the purchase of the last piece of private land in the watershed. 

Water quality parameters are expected to improve significantly through cost effective actions 

that would result due to the purchase.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

71

Lower Salmon Habitat Protection and Restoration Proposals 

1. Project ID: 28044

Protect and Restore Deer Creek Watershed

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries/Watershed

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Protect and restore valuable fluvial aquatic habitat by improving riparian 

and watershed conditions in upper watershed through watershed assessment and restoration 

activities in Deer Creek watershed.

FY02 Request: $155,213

3 YR Estimate: $669,213

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. This is a proposal to primarily improve habitat for resident fish and wildlife 

along Deer Creek above the falls. Reviewers question the value provided by stream habitat 

restoration if the dominant benefactor is brook trout, as appears to be the case here.

According to the proposal, the Nez Perce Tribe currently owns 27% of the watershed and 

proposes to conduct an Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale (EAWS) to describe 

current conditions and make management decisions. There is an apparent lack of current 

management consensus with the Idaho Department of Fish & Game, which owns half of 

the watershed, and the EAWS is proposed as a method to enable consensus. Reviewers saw 

no indication that completion of an EAWS would provide substantial additional valuable 

information in this situation. The proposal and response do not adequately describe 

alternative management options. We suggest that in future the proponents reconsider all 

available options, including buying out the grazing rights, conservation easements, fencing of 

the riparian zone, use of the CRP program, and purchase of private property.

The ISRP reiterates its recommendation that Lower Salmon (and Little Salmon) proposals 

(such as this, the following IDFG’s proposal #28018 and the Nez Perce Tribe's proposal 

#28010) need to be better coordinated with consensus on approaches to protection of fish 

and wildlife habitat.

The proponents are referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the 

specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on 

Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project addresses RPA 154. This proposal will directly benefit redband trout; however, 

the presence of bull trout was not identified. Improved water quality will benefit 

anadromous fish located below the falls. The reservoir project is not currently planned for 

this area. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

72

2. Project ID: 28018

Lower Salmon River Tributary Protection and Enhancement

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Protect and enhance important aquatic and terrestrial habitats in Salmon 

River tributaries.

FY02 Request: $101,000

3 YR Estimate: $1,048,000

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part to develop and complete planning and prioritization effort. The work in the 

Lower Salmon should be treated as a geographic region with project selection and 

prioritization at that geographic scale. The proposal and the responses show this to be 

largely a planning effort with little included for technical review. Specific proposals need to 

be prepared for each project (easement, purchase, etc.). Sponsors are referred to the 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes’ Habitat Acquisition and Restoration Plan –

Project 19910600. Monitoring and Evaluation plans should be made consistent with a 

state/national sampling plan such as the National Resources Inventory. See the ISRP 

reviews and proponent’s responses to ISRP initial concerns on project proposals 28018, 

28010, 199202603, 28036, 28038, 28040, 28039, 28037. The proponents are also referred to 

the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic 

Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and 

Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project addresses RPA 154. This proposal is linked to project 28010. Reviewers 

identified this proposed work to be a high priority if managers and stakeholders agree as to 

which easements should be purchased or are in agreement relative to the section of the plan 

that tentatively identifies properties that could be purchased. When funding this project, 

project 28010 funding levels should be considered. The development of the restoration plan 

should be a priority for this project. The Wildlife Committee rated the project as having 

significant wildlife benefits using the criteria of permanence, size, connectivity to other 

habitat, and juxtaposition to public lands.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

73

3. Project ID: 28010 

Nez Perce Salmon River Terrestrial

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Protect, enhance, and restore native canyon grassland, and associated 

riparian habitats within the Lower Salmon and Little Salmon River Watersheds, along with 

high elevation wet meadows, which are the headwaters and water storage systems for the 

same.

FY02 Request: $2,801,996

3 YR Estimate: $8,826,742

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part to develop and complete planning and prioritization effort. The work in the 

Lower Salmon should be treated as a geographic region with project selection and 

prioritization at that geographic scale. 

The proponents are referred to the ISRP Review of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai 

Tribes’ Habitat Acquisition and Restoration Plan (19910600). The project was reviewed in 

the Mountain Columbia Province to determine whether it provided scientifically sound 

criteria and protocol to prioritize habitat acquisitions. The ISRP found that document 

described a good plan for habitat acquisition and restoration of wildlife habitat in mitigation 

for lost aquatic and riparian habitat due to the Kerr Project No. 5 located on the Flathead 

River and could serve as a useful model to other habitat and restoration proposals with some 

minor revision of the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) component of the plan. The M&E 

component has subsequently been reviewed and approved subject to minor modifications in 

ISRP report (www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isrp2001-4AlbeniFalls.pdf). The proponents 

are also referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific 

comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial 

Monitoring and Evaluation.

This is a proposal addresses a clear set of general needs in those areas. Nevertheless, the 

proposal is not amendable to scientific review. More attention to planning and criteria for 

prioritization of possible acquisitions (including ties to anadromous fish habitat where 

appropriate) are needed.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

The sponsors have identified several properties that could be purchased. The funding of 

this proposal would allow for the immediate implementation of habitat work following the 

purchase. The NPT and IDFG will coordinate at the technical and policy level throughout 

the life of the project. When funding this project, project number 28018 funding should be 

considered. The Wildlife Committee rated the project as having significant wildlife benefits 

using the criteria of permanence, size, connectivity to other habitat, and juxtaposition to 

public lands. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

74

4. Project ID: 28050

Protect and Restore Little Salmon River

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries/Watershed

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Protect valuable riparian corridor and fluvial aquatic habitat while 

increasing habitat quality and quantity within the mainstem Little Salmon river basin.

FY02 Request: $262,896

3 YR Estimate: $560,538

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in Part; objective 2 only. The proposal would "partner" with landowner group to 

improve riparian habitat, and demonstrates good interactive potential between NPT and 

landowners. The 2.5 miles of restored riparian habitat, the primary restoration project, 

would not be accessible to the public.

The proposal provided little information on fish resources in the immediate project area. 

The response indicates that no sensitive or federally listed species inhabit the reach, and that 

habitat exists for rainbow and cutthroat trout but it is not clear that these species are present. 

Because the property is 1 mile above the Little Salmon Creek falls, benefit to anadromous 

fish is very indirect and a weak case is made for any such benefit. The response states that 

"it is the Tribe's as well as Idaho Fish and Game's opinion that inadequate habitat exists 

above the barrier" and "restoration of the upstream habitat above the falls is targeted for the 

eventual establishment of passage... ". 

Because of these factors the ISRP recommends that the primary proposed action, to conduct 

riparian restoration on the Circle C property (Objective 1), and its associated monitoring 

(Objective 3) not be funded.

An assessment of conditions in the watershed, identification of what natural processes are 

being interrupted, what, if anything, can be done to let these processes work as expected, 

and reasonable predication of fishery gains all need to be completed before any proposal for 

active restoration can be given adequate technical review. Therefore the ISRP recommends 

that the watershed assessment preparation component only (Objective 2) be funded with the 

stipulation that it emphasize existing and future desired fish populations and fish habitat. 

The proponents are referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the 

specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on 

Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.

 

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project addresses RPA 149 and 154. The goal is to eventually establish anadromous 

fish populations above the falls where good habitat would have been established through 

this project. Although no biological monitoring is identified, it has been proposed for this 

site through Proposal 28045. The existing monitoring appears to be of low intensity and may 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

75

not be sufficient since it is performed downstream of the implementation. Reviewers 

expressed concerns that there needs to be more intensive monitoring (e.g., fish 

presence/absence and abundance). Monitoring of biological characters is important due to 

the due to the presence of resident fish (e.g., redband trout) at the site of implementation. 

The sponsors indicated that a plan to monitor biological parameters is currently being 

developed.

5. Project ID: 28049

Restore and Protect Slate Creek Watershed

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries Watershed

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Restore and protect the Slate Creek Watershed for the benefit of both 

resident and anadromous fish using an overall watershed approach. Restoration and 

protection efforts will be done cooperatively with the Nez Perce National Forest.

FY02 Request: $231,841

3 YR Estimate: $966,099

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (medium priority)

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable but Medium Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable - medium priority. This is a clearly written proposal that targets specific 

restoration activities, primarily to reduce sedimentation, and shows good familiarity with 

Slate Creek. Benefits should accrue to chinook, steelhead, and bull trout. Excellent 

collaboration between the Nez Perce Tribe and the Nez Perce National Forest that 

administers 93% of the watershed is evident. The ISRP compliments the proponents for a 

nicely planned project. 

An Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale has recently been completed by the Nez 

Perce National Forest and was provided to reviewers. The project response clarified the 

need to complete one of the restoration activities.

To assist in establishing a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are referred 

to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic 

Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and 

Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Slate Creek is a known production site for anadromous and resident fish. This project 

addresses RPA 400.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

76

6. Project ID: 28058 

Restore Fish Passage and Habitat in the Upper East Fork of the South Fork of the Salmon 

River 

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Environmental Quality - Idaho Office of Species 

Conservation 

Short Description: Restoration of fish passage and aquatic and riparian habitat through a 

historic open pit mine, which created a migration barrier in the middle of the east Fork of 

the South Fork of the Salmon River (EFSFSR)

FY02 Request: $842,000

3 YR Estimate: $894,000

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (Medium Priority)

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable (Medium Priority)

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable - medium priority. The project would restore fish passage by remediating a 

Stibnite mine "legacy". The site is no doubt a major source of sediment in the basin that 

should have been stabilized long ago. It seems reasonable to expect that the 7 miles of 

habitat available above the Glory Hole barrier would be useable for spawning and rearing by 

anadromous stocks, cutthroat and fluvial bull trout and therefore will provide fish benefits if 

the barrier were removed. However, the proposal and response were not definitive in 

describing such benefits, and the ISRP notes (and shares) CBFWA reviewers concern over 

this issue. BPA should examine whether this is appropriate offsite mitigation.

Monitoring and evaluation also remains a significant issue. Although the response indicates 

that appropriate monitoring would be done jointly by a number of agencies, details of 

methodology were not provided. Thus ISRP support of this project is conditional on the 

completion of an M & E design. The proponents are referred to the programmatic section 

of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, 

and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Addresses RPA 149. Although monitoring does not exist in the proposal, activities would 

take place through other projects funded outside the BPA process. Removal of the passage 

barrier would allow passage to areas suitable for anadromous fish spawning as well for use 

by fluvial bull trout. This project will immediately provide information for the management 

of bull trout and cutthroat trout and eventually anadromous fish. Reviewers question why 

the removal of this barrier is now a desire of the sponsor. The IDFG, NPT, and NMFS 

support the concept that has been proposed but NPT questions the priority of the removal 

versus other proposed actions that have been submitted by proposal sponsors.

The Resident Fish Caucus expressed concern relative to the lack of inclusion of fisheries 

information. The Resident Fish Caucus suggests that without specific goals and objectives 

related to fisheries benefits this project should not be funded. If specific fisheries goals and 

objectives can be determined than this project could be considered as a recommended action 

if the proponents address information about downstream effects and hazards as a result of 

this large scale project. Until downstream effects are better addressed the Resident Fish 

Caucus questions whether possible downstream damage might out weigh up stream gains. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

77

In addition, the Resident Fish Caucus questions whether the work could be completed in 

one year as proposed. The Resident Fish Caucus believes the tie to the Federal Hydropower 

system is unconvincing. 

Project ID: 28019

Improve Stream Habitat by Reducing Discharge from Animal Feeding Operations 

Sponsor: ISDA, IOSC

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Enhance tributary and main stem fish habitat and water quality by 

reducing direct discharge and run-off from Animal Feeding Operations by supporting onfarm improvement with cost-share funding and technical assistance.

FY02 Request: $2,026,000

3 YR Estimate: $2,026,000

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. This proposal is a request for funds to identify streamside animal feeding 

operations and to improve water quality and fish habitat by funding 70% of the cost of 

remedial actions for landowners, especially those with smaller herds. The proposal is similar 

to several others that request funds for an activity that has no specific objectives other than 

identifying and fixing problems. 

On the other hand, the ISRP agrees the problem of animal feeding operations in the Salmon 

subbasin is real in a biological sense and notes a similar observation from the CBFWA 

reviewers. Also "real" is landowner apprehension regarding the threat of "taking" fish listed 

under ESA if their operations are found to cause impact. However, the ISRP agrees with 

CBFWA reviewers that it is important to target those feeding operations that pose the 

greatest problems in key portions of the subbasin where fish would benefit the most. As 

written, the proposal does not do that and specific actions are not identified, making it 

impossible for reviewers to support the proposal in its current form. 

The ISRP recommends that projects dealing with animal feeding operations in the Upper 

Salmon basin be considered for funding as part of Project #199202603 and related 

proposals submitted by the Custer and Lemhi Soil and Water Conservation Districts. Those 

projects either have or are developing criteria for effective prioritization of projects for 

benefit of fish in the subbasin. The ISRP recommends that the Upper Salmon Basin 

Watershed Project give priority to identifying key feeding operations and to coordinating 

remediation with their owners and with the ISDA and IOSC and other funding sources.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Sponsors suggest that the proposed work will provide the tool needed to reach the private 

landowners, a tool that is currently absent. Based on experience elsewhere in Idaho, the 

sponsors indicated that $10,000-20,000/feedlot would be required to implement the 

prescribed corrective measures; however, the sponsors are unsure of the number of 

unregulated feed lots that would require corrective measures in the Salmon River subbasin 

and thus are unable to calculate the reduction of inputs that will occur until the cattle 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

78

operations are identified. Based on conversations with the owners of the cattle operations, 

the sponsors anticipate the ability to address approximately 80% of the unregulated sites. 

Because the number of feedlots that may need corrective measures is unknown, the 

reviewers expressed concern whether the requested amount would be enough to correct all 

the identified operations. The sponsors indicated that they were unsure if the requested 

amount would be sufficient but also suggested that the funding request may exceed their 

needs. The sponsors indicated that there are no out-year costs associated with the proposed 

work since landowners and other programs are responsible for maintenance costs. 

Reviewers questioned why a needs assessment was not proposed as the first step for this 

proposed project. The sponsors suggested that implementing an assessment process could 

disturb the synergy that exists among the existing regulatory programs. The sponsors 

further stated that the Governor of Idaho has asked what actions could be taken relative to 

livestock that would immediately benefit fish and wildlife. The sponsors indicted that the 

fencing of unregulated feedlots is considered the best solution to addressing livestock 

induced problems. Although monitoring was not identified in the proposal, monitoring 

activities will be performed through other ongoing programs. The reviewers suggest there 

this a lack of coordination and believe the prioritization process could be enhanced through 

coordination with the state and tribes. The managers acknowledge that if the right 

operations are selected the tagged species will significantly benefit from the activity. Until the 

reviewers can be assured the work occurs in areas that the managers have identified as key 

areas, the reviewers are unable to recommend the proposal as a high priority. The reviewers 

suggest that through the TMDL process there is EPA money for this type of activity. 

Furthermore, reviewers question the benefit/cost issue and subsequently believe the 

proposed work appears expensive and are concerned about the ability to achieve the 

proposed goals in a timely manner. 

Project ID: 199405000

Salmon River Habitat Enhancement M & E

Sponsor: Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

Subbasin: Salmon

Short Description: Maintain habitat improvements and evaluate benefits; monitor salmonid 

populations and habitat parameters; coordinate land and water stewardship activities; 

coordinate planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of new improvements and 

protections

FY02 Request: $249,500

3 YR Estimate: $755,000

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments:

Fundable subject to a commitment to provide the data and metadata to STREAMNET or 

other database available to the public. 

This project continues to focus on monitoring and evaluation of results of previously 

completed and ongoing restoration work. Ongoing projects are adequately justified with 

references to methods and results, however, this project should begin to plan for change to 

probabilistic site selection so that inferences can be drawn to the entire watershed. See the 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

79

reviews and responses of Project #199107300 “Idaho Natural Production Monitoring and 

Evaluation.” 

The proponents seem to be unaware of the requirement for data generated by BPA funded 

projects to be made available to the public. The ISRP assumes that STREAMNET is the 

appropriate database for storage of data and metadata, but other arrangements might be 

agreed upon with the Council during the contracting phase.

The ISRP appreciates the commitment to development and adoption of common habitat 

survey methods on a Columbia Basin-wide basis and to corroborate with other principal 

investigators working with M&E projects throughout the Columbia Basin to ensure that 

results are comparable among projects and areas. See ISRP reviews and proponent responses 

to project proposals 199107300, 28051. Collocation of study sites for fish counts, aquatic 

habitat, and water quality would enhance the region’s ability to draw meaningful conclusions 

from the array of M&E projects currently underway.

The proponents should interact closely with Project 199801600 in the Columbia Plateau (Jim 

Ruzycki and Richard Carmichael, ODFW, “Monitor Natural Escapement and Productivity 

of John Day Basin Spring Chinook Salmon.” ODFW revised this proposal to create a 

comprehensive plan to include all monitoring and evaluation for all anadromous salmonid 

lifestages and habitats in the John Day Basin. The M&E program in the John Day Basin is 

apparently developing as a model for the Oregon section of the Columbia Basin and is being 

carefully reviewed by agencies in Washington. Also, the ISRP recommends that the 

proponents consider using data protocols recommended in Johnson et al. (2001) (Johnson, 

D. H., N. Pittman, E. Wilder, J. A. Silver, R. W. Plotnikoff, B. C. Mason, K. K. Jones, P. 

Roger, T. A. O’Neil, C. Barrett. 2001. Inventory and Monitoring of Salmon Habitat in the 

Pacific Northwest - Directory and Synthesis of Protocols for Management/Research and 

Volunteers in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia. Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. 211pp). The proponents are 

referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on 

Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring 

and Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project addresses RPAs 150, 152 and 183.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

80

Clearwater Subbasin Proposals

Project ID: 28004

Lawyer Creek Subwatershed-Steelhead Trout Habitat Improvement Project

Sponsor: Lewis Soil Conservation District

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Reduce sedimentation to improve instream habitat in Lawyer Creek and 

the lower Clearwater River, and improve upland water storage by implementing best 

management practices for sediment reduction and water retention.

FY02 Request: $246,500

3 YR Estimate: $679,500 

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. The proponents need to complete a watershed assessment that allows 

identification of critical salmonid life stage usage in the watershed and geographic portions 

of the basin that warrant restoration and protection activity, but the proposal does not lay 

out the objective of doing a watershed assessment in sufficient detail. This project is of low 

priority. It was not demonstrated in the review process that Lawyer Creek has the potential 

for significant fish production. No work should continue until a watershed assessment is 

complete and there is clear indication of how this project will be monitored. No work on 

limiting factors to salmonid life stages has been conducted, or seems in the plans, but such 

work should follow from the fish habitat assessment as part of an overall watershed 

assessment. Clearly defined and acceptable WA procedures are required, standardized for 

the subbasin and basin. For M&E, the advice of a biometrician and experimental analyst is 

recommended, along with a cooperative effort from a school of agriculture/land use or 

school of ecology for more detailed work. Monitoring and evaluation by means of modeling 

approaches, as suggested in the proposal, can be instructive, but a control and treatment 

comparison of flow regimes, temperature, sedimentation and the fish response must be 

included, along with a clear indication of this project’s connection with a basinwide program 

of M&E. Likewise, an analysis of risk and uncertainty would aid reviews and planning (i.e., 

indicate the amount of work required before a positive impact is measurable, and indicate 

the likelihood of failure). 

The proponents are referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the 

specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on 

Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Significant cost share is described in the narrative portion of the proposal although it is not 

mentioned in the budget portion of the proposal. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

81

Selway Falls

1. Project ID: 28013

Renovate Selway Falls Anadromous Fish Passage Tunnel

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: The Selway River anadromous fish tunnel was constructed in the late 

1960' in an effort to provide improved passage conditions through the Selway Falls complex. 

Since that time the infrastructure has deteriorated and requires renovation.

FY02 Request: $344,700

3 YR Estimate: $344,700

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part to do an expert appraisal to include a site review and feasibility report by 

independent hydrological engineers and biologists, with recommended action, including 

alternatives. There is currently no firm basis for concluding that passage is either satisfactory

or unsatisfactory. Reviewers were not convinced that the falls were an obstruction; benefits 

to fish were not adequately demonstrated. The reviewers were impressed by the fact that 

during the 1999 radio-tracking 5 of the marked steelhead did surmount the falls (and no 

evidence exists that all or most of the 13 fish that used the tunnel could not have gone over 

the falls instead if the tunnel were absent). 

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This is a one-year budget proposal that will not require out year funding. 

2. Project ID: 28017

Monitoring the Selway Falls renovation project for passage of spring chinook salmon and 

steelhead

Sponsor: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: The Selway River anadromous fish Tunnel is being considered for 

renovation; To fine tune the fishway and manage it optimally, swimming behavior within the 

fishway will be monitored using electromyogram (EMG) radio transmitters.

FY02 Request: $134,350

3 YR Estimate: $413,992

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. This proposed investigation does not appear to offer a quick and reasonably 

priced answer to the question of fish passage at this site, if passage is indeed a problem (see 

recommendation for 28013). Details of the tunnel design and current condition were lacking 

in this and the previous proposal. Other options for fish passage may be possible. 

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

(none)
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

82

Project ID: 28020

Nez Perce Tribe Harvest Monitoring Program

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resource Management

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: The objective is to develop and implement a comprehensive,

biologically sound monitoring program for the Nez Perce Tribe for the Columbia River 

Basin and tributaries.

FY02 Request: $326,646

3 YR Estimate: $1,030,006

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. A well-designed sampling of harvest should be possible. The data currently being 

collected may not be adequate to estimate harvest with the precision required. This 

information is fundamental to stock a ssessment. Adequate catch statistics are essential to 

stock assessment and management. We endorse the consultation with a Columbia River 

Intertribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) biometrician to establish and implement monitoring 

strategies for the NPT for the Columbia River Basin and tributaries. An output of the 

project should include annual harvest calculations with the degrees of uncertainty of the 

estimates, and peer-reviewed catch reports. 

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project is important for assessment of harvest impacts and the development of run 

reconstructions. Accuracy and completeness of past reporting has been inconsistent. This 

project should address the previous problems and ensure a statistically valid sampling design. 

The projected returns for 2002 indicate that significant sampling effort will be required.

Project ID: 28021

Lower Clearwater Habitat Enhancement Project

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Acquire, protect, enhance and restore a total of 10,000 acres of wildlife 

habitat on the Lower Clearwater River emphasizing habitats that will enhance recovery 

opportunities for listed fish stocks and/or NPTH Hatchery restoration efforts.

FY02 Request: $1,428,000

3 YR Estimate: $10,026,000

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments:

Fundable in part to acquire lands in portions of the targeted area where a watershed 

assessment is complete and there is potentially productive habitat. At present, the Lapwai 

Creek watershed alone meets those qualifications. Other portions of the proposals are not 

fundable without completion of an adequate "fish-centered" watershed assessment with 

demonstration of habitat potential. The detailed watershed assessment and prescription must 

be conducted, then used to provide a plan that addresses the high priority habitat issues first. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

83

The latter should clearly indicate priorities for rehabilitation work and outline land tracts 

desired, and why, i.e., justification is required that is related to fish production benefits. The 

link of this project (see 199706000 and 199608600) with priorities within the Clearwater 

system is also required (indicate priority within the subbasin, and expected benefits), along 

with the tie to a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation program (see comments on 

28004) to document benefits. The proponents are referred to the programmatic section of 

this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, 

and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.

The proposal, field tour, and presentation showed that the project has great merit in terms of 

identifying habitat abuses to remedy. More work is required to incorporate these land 

acquisitions into a subbasin M&E program. The ISRP endorses the commitment of the 

proponents to cooperate in the development and use of standardized site selection 

procedures and data collection protocols. See the reviews of project 28045.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

The intent of this project is to acquire riparian properties or highly erosive soil properties 

that will be available for cost share programs (i.e. CRP). This project addresses RPA 154 

and possibly 153. The Wildlife Committee rated the project as having significant wildlife 

benefits using the criteria of permanence, size, connectivity to other habitat, and 

juxtaposition to public lands.

Project ID: 198709900

Dworshak Dam Impacts Assessment and Fisheries Investigation

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Evaluates the impacts of drawdowns and routine dam operations on 

resident fish populations. Also, determines ways to minimize entrainment losses of fish into 

Dworshak Dam.

FY02 Request: $468,801 (CBFWA Recommendation: $344,200)

3 YR Estimate: $1,085,801 (CBFWA Recommendation: $991,200)

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part. This has been an on-going project to study efficacy of strobe-lighting for 

remedying kokanee entrainment. The project has demonstrated that this works, therefore 

should do its reporting and be concluded, not prolong the present study or start further 

objectives. It is time to halt testing and for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to apply the 

method. The proposal had two new objectives: study of bulltrout entrainment and study of 

prospects for lake fertilization. The bulltrout objective was dropped after preliminary ISRP 

review, the sponsor agreeing that it did not fit in with the project, and suggesting that it 

might be submitted as a separate proposal in the future. The same should be done with the 

lake fertilization objective. Omitting these new objectives and putting the project in a 

conclusion phase should enable considerable budget reduction.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

84

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

The proper project number for this project is 198709900. This is an ongoing project that 

received a new project number for an unknown reason. Although this project would address 

the primary threat to the Dworshak reservoir kokanee population, kokanee are not a listed 

species and therefore received a NO for this criterion. There is a significant increase in the 

revised budget submitted to the ISRP.

This project has a long history of past accomplishments and publications. Past work has 

focused on testing strobe lights in off-site lakes with high densities of kokanee, and the 

results are encouraging. Currently, the principal investigators are testing the use of strobe 

lights on one turbine of the dam. Results of this study will demonstrate if future mitigation 

efforts should include installing strobe lights on the reservoir outlets, and ultimately full 

implementation on the dam. Therefore, it is important to complete Objective 1 in order to 

direct future mitigation efforts. 

Objective 2 will determine if bull trout are being entrained through the dam, assess if strobe 

lights repel bull trout, and correlate dam operations with the abundance and distribution of 

bull trout in the reservoir. The contention that bull trout are vulnerable to entrainment 

when kokanee are concentrated near the dam seems intuitively logical and needs further 

investigation. The objective would be more justified if the authors could cite a reference for 

the statement that “entrainment losses of bull trout may exceed 30% of the population per 

year. 

Objective 3 requires collection of limnological data to characterize the productivity of the 

reservoir to assess the feasibility of improving growth and average size of kokanee. This 

objective seems logical and funding is warranted; however, a more detailed description is 

needed to determine the feasibility of nutrient enhancement to improve growth and survival 

of kokanee. As stated, this should be clarified in the future as information is obtained and 

analyzed. 

Project ID: 28025

Potlatch River Watershed Restoration

Sponsor: Latah Soil and Water Conservation District

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: To restore ecosystem functions, restore degraded habitat and protect 

natural habitat within the Potlatch River watershed in Idaho thereby improving water quality 

and quantity throughout the drainage.

FY02 Request: $505,125

3 YR Estimate: $1,302,625

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments

Fundable in part to complete a watershed assessment centered around the watershed’s fish 

resources. However the proposal was marginal in terms of describing what would be done 

in the watershed assessment - see ISRP programmatic comments. A better proposal would 

clearly describe the tasks and methods for watershed assessment and for planning and 

prioritizing prospective treatments, also with defined monitoring and evaluation.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

85

Much work remains to be done on watershed assessment, the project’s initial step. Thus, the 

basis for action is still far from clear. The project should be restricted to Objective 1, which 

covers watershed assessment. Objective 2, implementing “best management practices” 

(BMPs), cannot logically be undertaken until, in a proposal for the next funding cycle, the 

BMPs are described on the basis of the completed watershed analysis.

The procedure outlined for watershed assessment in sponsor’s response needs to be better 

directed and organized. A major shortcoming is that the ties to fish are weak. The watershed 

assessment should identify needs for ecosystem protection and restoration to benefit 

specified, critical salmonid life stages within specified geographic portions of the watershed. 

Also, the watershed assessment and resultant planning need to be tied in with development 

of a master plan for lower Clearwater steelhead and salmon spawning and rearing. 

The ISRP endorses the sponsor’s proposal to initiate discussions with the Latah NRCS Field 

Office NRI specialist. The intent of the ISRP recommendation is not necessarily to use the 

existing database at the Potlatch River watershed or Clearwater River subbasin scales, though 

this may be possible for variables currently measured by NRI. Rather, the reviewers are 

suggesting that data collected as part of project 28025 (at the local level for local inferences) 

might be collected at sites selected as an intensification of current NRI sites, using common 

data measurement protocols so results could be more easily combined and compared at 

larger scales, e.g., to compare the Crooked River and Potlatch Subbasins, or the Clearwater 

and Salmon subbasins. Also, see the review remarks on Project 28043.

To assist in establishing a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are referred 

to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic 

Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and 

Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project addresses RPA 152 and 154. This project occurs in a priority watershed for 

Snake River steelhead. Budget should be scrutinized; cost share contributions are unclear.

Project ID: 28029

Restore Lawyer Creek Habitat Targeting Steelhead and Chinook Salmon

Sponsor: Clearwater Economic Development Association

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Restore physical and biological process in seven miles of anadromous 

and resident fish habitat in the Lawyer Creek watershed based on reach prioritization 

determined from a watershed assessment.

FY02 Request: $342,750

3 YR Estimate: $1,895,311

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part. The project is of low priority. It was not demonstrated in the review 

process that Lawyer Creek has potential for significant fish production. This project should 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

86

complete a watershed assessment that identifies critical life stages and habitat of the 

anadromous salmonids involved that warrant restoration and protection—and specific 

geographic portions of the watershed where work needs to be done to accomplish this. 

Therefore, only the first two of the project’s goals should be funded: (1) complete a 

watershed assessment and (2) draft a master plan for . . . watershed (this omits the proposal’s 

specification of only the lower “7 miles of the watershed”). Also, the watershed assessment 

and resultant planning need to be tied in with development of a master plan for lower 

Clearwater steelhead and salmon spawning and rearing. The project implementation phases 

should be based on results of the watershed assessment and included (with an improved 

M&E section) in a proposal for the next funding cycle.

In any future proposal, it would be advisable to discuss in more detail the methods for 

monitoring fish, e.g., justify the type of electrofishing gear and sizes of reaches to be 

inventoried. It would be better to estimate fish populations by mark-and-recapture rather 

than by a depletion method. Second opinions from bona fide fluvial geomorphologists 

experienced in matters of Pacific Northwest anadromous fishes should also be sought on 

plans for stream habitat works. Although the present proposal has definite positive aspects, 

it and the response to ISRP comments do not demonstrate familiarity with developments in 

knowledge about anadromous salmonid habitat.

To assist in establishing a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are referred 

to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic 

Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and 

Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project partially addresses RPA 154. Comprehensive watershed assessment should be 

completed prior to implementation.

Project ID: 28031

Evaluation of Unclipped Hatchery Steelhead Released in the Clearwater and Salmon River 

Basins

Sponsor: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Determine if outplanted unclipped steelhead: (a) return at higher rates 

than fish from other artificial propagation programs, (b) spawn where intended, and (c) 

increase the natural juvenile population.

FY02 Request: $484,993

3 YR Estimate: $1,038,029

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Beginning in the year 2000, unclipped (and unmarked) hatchery steelhead smolts were 

released in both the Clearwater and Salmon basins. Some 700,000 fish were released in this 

manner in 2000, apparently about the same in 2001, and the practice will continue 

indefinitely unless something changes. Unclipped A run adults from those releases appear to 

have comprised about 2.4% of the year 2001 run over Lower Granite dam, and B run adults 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

87

will arrive upriver beginning in 2002. The ISRP agrees with CBFWA that this is a timecritical issue. 

The ISRP is very concerned about the release of unclipped fish, and questions if this project 

is appropriate for FWP funding. The ISRP suggests that the Council review the issue, along 

with the possibility that sufficient information is currently being gathered, primarily by Nez 

Perce Tribal staff, to assess whether the program is having net positive or negative 

consequences.

As a last resort the ISRP would reluctantly view as fundable Objective 1 (estimating adult 

return rate) and Objective 2 (determining distribution of adult returns). In the panel's view, 

Objective 3 (determining if juvenile densities change) would have enough risk of returning 

ambiguous results to make it of marginal utility. Objective 4 (document Lower Granite dam 

fall-back) is a separate issue unrelated to the rest of the proposal.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This is a time sensitive study to evaluate returning fish that were released in previous years. 

Deferral of this task would sacrifice potential data. This project addresses RPA 107. 

Monitoring of unmarked fish was a priority in the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program. US v 

OR Fall fishery agreement recommends securing funding for monitoring this production.

Project ID: 28032

Assessment of A-Run Steelhead Populations in the Clearwater River Basin

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: An assessment of the current status and performance of the A-run 

steelhead population in the Clearwater Subbasin (i.e., population abundance, productivity, 

spatial structure, and diversity).

FY02 Request: $686,800

3 YR Estimate: $1,723,690

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. ISRP reviewers seriously question whether this new project is needed, 

especially for the intended 5-10 years. Much is questionable because it shows redundancy 

with NPT proposals for steelhead assessment and habitat work in Lapwai, Big & Little 

Canyon creeks, and because it appears the concerted effort through the Fish and Wildlife 

Program to restore habitat in those lower Clearwater tributaries seems to be producing few 

results. There is a need for comprehensive stock assessment and evaluation of current 

habitat conditions (especially temperature) through all the tributaries used by A-run fish. 

Only then would it be possible to evaluate potential gains and where best to begin. This is 

being done, for example, by the Yakama Nation in the Yakima basin, with EDT. 

The work on genetic structuring (microsatellite analysis) seems of especially low priority. 

Probably enough has already been done. And what if the project were to find a difference? 

How would that information be applied? At least one reviewer was unconvinced that A run 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

88

and B run are distinct; the apparent distinction may only be a function of ocean growth and 

survival. Why wouldn’t there have been gene flow in the past? 

Reviewers feel the dialog provided by the response process has enabled them to pass a 

number of technical comments and suggestions to the proposal authors. Undoubtedly, 

Clearwater systems are functioning below capacity, since adult returns are low. If parr or 

smolts are at 35% of capacity, what then? Does this imply adult returns were, say, 10% of 

capacity (smolt yield may be higher due to the density dependent response at low adult 

density)? Is this a danger zone that triggers management actions, as it should? More 

importantly, are they below capacity and also below replacement? It is that information that 

is required from stock status, thus the need for reliable adult and smolt data. Reviewers feel 

it is unfortunate that the good advice on better methods of smolt estimation and adult 

enumeration based on published successes elsewhere on the Pacific coast and in Atlantic 

salmon studies were not incorporated. A revised and more focused proposal would be 

welcome in the future that is complete with data review, analysis and reporting, and clearly 

states tasks that are supported by the Focus Group. 

The proponents are referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the 

specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on 

Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project addresses RPA 179 and 180. This project compliments other proposed work in 

the Potlatch drainage. The genetic work may be redundant and could possible be deferred.

Project ID: 28033

Monitoring and evaluating coho salmon reintroduction in the Clearwater River Basin

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe, Department of Fisheries Resources Management

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Monitor and evaluate the results of the reintroduction of coho salmon 

to the Clearwater River Subbasin so that operations can be adaptively managed to optimize 

hatchery and natural production, sustain harvest and minimize ecological impacts.

FY02 Request: $676,752 (CBFWA Recommendation: $240,000)

3 YR Estimate: $1,882,256 (CBFWA Recommendation: $720,000)

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority/ Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

It was the consensus of the ISRP that this work is not fundable, at least until the time when 

the coho reintroduction program shows some reasonable promise of being able to 

contribute to the Clearwater fishery program. In the meantime dam counts should suffice. 

Reviewers are not convinced that the Clearwater provides the appropriate setting for a 

significant coho resource and its habitat (unlike, for example, the Grand Ronde) is not 

conducive for coho. Reviewers also note that SARs to date for releases since 1995, while a 

preliminary indication, have been so low as to portend poor performance. All in all, the 

ISRP feels it is premature to fund this effort at the present.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

89

The proponents are referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the 

specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on 

Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Coho supplementation is ongoing and data collection is needed to evaluate those efforts. 

Monitoring of juvenile survival, SAR, and adult return abundance of the hatchery origin 

coho is considered a high priority. The remaining tasks could be deferred.

Recommend that the priority ranking of HP be given to a reduced scope of this proposal 

that would focus M&E efforts on: (1) juvenile survival, (2) SAR’s, and (3) adult return 

abundance of the hatchery origin component. Reduced budget of $240,000 required. Comanagement commit through US vs Oregon fall fishery agreement to “use their best efforts 

to secure funding for monitoring and evaluation programs to implement the production 

actions in this agreement”. NMFS 1999 BiOp on Artificial Propagation Recommends the 

Clearwater River Coho Restoration program determine the most effective strategies for 

restoration, including marking and subsequent evaluation. 

Project ID: 28041

Dworshak Zooplankton Entrainment

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Apply hydroacoustic technology to monitor zooplankton density and 

depth distribution at the Dworshak Dam forebay and apply this information to outlet 

selector gate operation to minimize or avoid zooplankton entrainment.

FY02 Request: $434,463

3 YR Estimate: $1,182,926

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments:

Not fundable. A response was not requested for this project. This endeavor needs much 

more pre-proposal background research of literature and better interaction with those doing 

other related Dworshak work. That research might well indicate futility of trying to regulate 

Dworshak Reservoir withdrawals to significantly reduce entrainment of zooplankton. The 

proposal fails to indicate review of the extensive basic literature on diel vertical migration of 

zooplankton. Several local reports concerning studies on Dworshak reservoir itself were 

referenced in the proposal text, none of them listed in the proposal’s reference section (it 

was empty). The basic literature might reveal that diel zooplankton migration is commonly 

so rapid and extends so far vertically as to require changing draw-off level hourly or oftener 

to avoid their entrainment. This might be difficult even if the dam’s outlet structures had 

been built for draw-off at many elevational increments over the depth of water that 

zooplankton traverse—and even if dominant competing requirements for water of special 

temperature (necessitating draw at certain levels) did not exist. The Dworshak rule curve is 

already extremely complex. Questioning of the presenters indicated that structural and priorneed constraints would likely prevent the draw-off-level flexibility needed to cope with diel 

migration of zooplankton. If the prospects for managing the draw-off for the intended 

purpose are not good, studying the zooplankton as outlined would have no value. Sponsor 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

90

should more thoroughly research zooplankton ecology, and if reasonable prospect of 

successful management is then seen, submit a revised proposal in a future year.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Entrainment of zooplankton through Dworshak Dam has not been identified as a limiting 

factor on kokanee populations in the reservoir. There is some information available that 

shows entrainment is occurring, but it is not clear how that is affecting the fish populations. 

The impact of strobe lights on the zooplankton populations should be investigated under 

project 28024.

This project uses hydroacoustic technology to monitor zooplankton movements in the 

forebay above Dworshak Dam, and then proposes to apply the information to manage dam 

operations to curtail zooplankton entrainment. The proposal further links zooplankton loss 

to problems with kokanee management, and ultimately suggests this a s an impediment to 

bull trout recovery. The problem (zooplankton loss), is referenced as a “potential” negative 

impact, and was “suggested” as a “possible” explanation for poor kokanee growth in ’91 and 

’92 in the proposal. The Resident Fish Caucus suggests that the proposal fails to discuss the 

excellent kokanee growth rates observed in Dworshak in the past 5 years. As a result, the 

acceptance of zooplankton loss as a management issue is not compelling. There are 

questions as to whether the proposed methods will be able to differentiate Cladocerans from 

other zooplankters, suspended detritus, small fish, or Chaoborus spp. 

The Resident Fish Caucus believes that the proposal reads as a concept paper rather than a 

project proposal and suggest that the proposal be rewritten so that more detail is provided 

and a stronger argument is presented as for why entrainment is a limiting factor to the 

system.

The Resident Fish Caucus suggests that a more acceptable approach to this issue may be to 

first conduct a problem assessment using conventional methods by sampling zooplankton 

drift in the tailrace. Loss could be quantified and related to gatewell selectors, and diel 

movement patterns could be inferred (see Novotny and Faler, 1982). An approach such as 

this could be done for less than 1⁄4 of the existing project’s cost as proposed, and then 

analyzed to see if corrective measures are needed or feasible.

Novotny, J. and M. P. Faler. 1982. Diurnal Characteristics of Zooplankton and

Macroinvertebrates in the Tailwater Below a Kentucky Flood Control Reservoir. 

Journal of Freshwater Ecology, Vol. 1, No. 4, April, 1982.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

91

Project ID: 28042

Timing and location of spawning by pure and introgressed cutthroat trout in the North Fork 

Clearwater River

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: The goal of this project is to precisely identify spawning areas and 

accurately determine the timing of spawning for pure and introgressed westslope cutthroat 

trout using state-of-the-art radio telemetry systems.

FY02 Request: $311,878

3 YR Estimate: $937,698

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. A response was not requested for this project. The project emphasizes 

performance of a technique (EMG radiotelemetry) but lacks adequate investigational design 

and management ties. In its current form the work would neither answer the introgression 

question nor aid in reducing the impacts of non-native salmonids. Project PI’s are very 

active researchers and leaders in EMG telemetry, but the proposal is lacking in population 

and genetic considerations which should form the heart of the project and the questions it is 

attempting to address. 

Previous studies have established that hybridization between westslope cutthroat trout 

(WCT) and introduced rainbow trout (RBT) is widespread in the drainage, and that some 

pure WCT still exist there. Therefore, WCT are obviously spawning with RBT, and three 

related types of fish must be present: pure WCT, pure RBT, and hybrids (perhaps also 

others, as mentioned below). The sponsor proposes to radiotelemetrically track WCT and

hybrids to find out where and when they spawn “since the mechanisms that limit the 

potential for hybridization between cutthroat trout and rainbow trout include aggressive 

spawning behavior and spatial separation between spawning sites.” No clear justification 

emerges from that statement. It is not stated why only WCT and hybrids—and not also 

RBT, the source of the hybridization—would be tracked. Most importantly, it is not stated 

how the study’s results could be applied, i.e., what management the hoped-for findings could 

lead to that might remedy the hybridization threat to pure WCT populations.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project could be improved if it were more closely tied to the new stocking strategy 

employed by the IDFG for Dworshak reservoir. IDFG would place a higher priority on 

identifying solutions to the introgression problem.

The objective of the proposed research project is to identify the timing and location of 

spawning by pure and introgressed westslope cutthroat trout (WCT) using radio-telemetry in 

the North Fork Clearwater drainage, Idaho. The project objectives will aid with recovery 

efforts and is consistent with the goals of the Northwest Power Planning Council’s 2000 

Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, Idaho Fish and Game, and the Nez Perce Tribe. 

The construction/implementation budget seems high for the proposed work statement, 

especially since only 40 fish will be monitored annually. It is unclear why the supporting 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

92

agency needs to contract out these services to a subcontractor for $227,774 during FY2002 

and 2003; possibly hiring a well-trained seasonal technician will reduce costs. A more 

detailed justification is needed to address the cost breakdown. Clearly, the PI’s are wellestablished authorities in the field of radio-telemetry. The sponsor should reconsider using a 

subcontractor to perform the described duties. The Resident Fish Caucus views the concept 

of the proposal as a High Priority.

Project ID: 28043

Crooked River Ecosystem Assessment at the Watershed Scale

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries/Watershed

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Assess watershed conditions and develop and prioritize watershed 

restoration activities

FY02 Request: $131,213

3 YR Estimate: $601,213

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments:

Fundable in Part to conduct EAWS only (objective 3 of Planning & Design phase). The 

proposal would conduct terrestrial and aquatic surveys, conduct a watershed assessment 

following U.S. Forest Service procedure, and perform activities such as road closures and 

prescribed burning in a part of the Nez Perce National Forest. Crooked River supports 

strong populations of bull and westslope cutthroat trout in headwaters and a run of 

naturalized spring chinook, with a dredge mining "legacy" in the lower several miles. 

Reviewers felt this proposal, while fundable in part, merits a low funding priority, lower than 

all similar projects on Forest Service lands in the subbasin. The upper half of the watershed 

is unroaded, grazing was terminated in 1993, and only 8 miles of road have been built in the 

last decade.

The proposal makes a logical case for the need for the EAWS assessment of the Crooked 

River and for the development of criteria to prioritize watershed restoration alternatives. 

Once a final set of implementation actions is identified, and before the time and expense of 

the NEPA preparation occurs, the proposed implementation plan should be reviewed by an 

independent scientific group. As project sponsors note in their response, re-restoration of 

the dredged areas (a 1980's restoration project is generally viewed as being unsuccessful) 

probably will not be appropriate.

The proposal seeks funding for one year of surveys prior to EAWS preparation. The review 

panel feels that some of those surveys (such as sensitive plant surveys, wildlife 

habitat/population surveys) are not amenable to Bonneville funding and recommends that 

they be supported by the USFS if really needed for the EAWS. If such funding is not 

available and the survey work is deemed critical for the EAWS, the ISRP recommends that 

the EAWS be deferred to a later funding cycle. The ISRP agrees with CBFWA that the 

watershed assessment should be completed prior to funding implementation activities. It 

may be that the best restoration plan for Crooked River is to simply leave it alone. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

93

The ISRP endorses the proponent’s proposal to investigate the possibility of linking 

terrestrial surveys to a national effort. The intent of the ISRP is not necessarily to provide 

data to the current NRI. Rather, the intent of the review comment was to suggest that data 

collected as part of project 28043 (at the local level for local inferences) might be collected at 

sites selected as an intensification of the current NRI sites using common data measurement 

protocols so that results could be more easily combined and compared at larger scales, e.g., 

to compare the Crooked River and Potlatch subbasins or the Clearwater and Salmon 

subbasins. Also see, the review of Project 28025.

To assist in establishing a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are referred 

to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic 

Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and 

Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Some habitat restoration efforts are proposed for implementation prior to completion of 

assessments, for these efforts the criteria would be yes. This project addresses RPA 150 and 

154. The watershed assessment should be completed prior to funding implementation 

activities. The budget for the implementation phase should be refined, as appropriate, based 

on the results of the assessment.

Project ID: 28045

Evaluating stream habitat using the Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries/Watershed Watershed 

Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries and Watershed

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: WME will implement habitat surveys and fish snorkel stations in order 

to characterize quantity and quality of available spawning and rearing habitat and will 

evaluate stream response to watershed restoration and/or management activity.

FY02 Request: $381,108

3 YR Estimate: $1,190,708

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part to develop a more detailed statistical design and with the assistance of a 

senior biometrician that is reviewed and endorsed by independent scientific reviewers 

(perhaps by the ISRP). Also required for the above review is a justification of the choice of 

each physical parameter chosen to monitor. This proposal reflects much thought in some 

portions but does not describe an adequate comprehensive M and E plan for habitat 

monitoring in the Clearwater, although the need for such a project is substantial. A 

comprehensive M&E program for habitat monitoring should include common probabilistic 

procedures and data collection protocols throughout the Mountain Snake and Blue 

Mountain Provinces, and indeed the entire Columbia Basin. 

As proposed, the Watershed Monitoring and Evaluation Plan would be implemented by the 

Fisheries/Watershed Department to evaluate habitat quality and water quality throughout 

the Mountain Snake Province where the Nez Perce Tribe has ongoing or proposed 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

94

watershed restoration projects. Department staff would also monitor "fish metrics" (species, 

age class, and size range) in the lowest reach of each monitored stream. In the Clearwater 

subbasin the plan would be implemented in four of the eight assessment units where 

projects exist or are planned. Apparently ten streams would be selected for the first year’s 

monitoring (together with some reference streams), and then six monitoring streams would 

be added annually.

This is the core project for the NPT habitat projects in both Clearwater and Salmon 

subbasins, but some detail is understandably in the process of evolution, and hence 

reviewers would need to take on faith that this would be well implemented. A specific 

concern is that the proposed protocol would not effectively assess the success of many 

habitat projects; for example, the possible migration of "new" fish above a newly replaced 

culvert would not be monitored. 

A major issue involves what physical habitat parameters should be systematically gathered 

that (a) show how the habitat has changed after, say, riparian vegetation is re-established and 

(b) indicate that important fish habitat attributes have (or haven't) changed. Proponents 

seem only to have thought about category (a), and seem to dismiss the need to include 

category (b) attributes because they "link" to existing fish enumeration (from other 

monitoring projects). Reviewers disagree that there is adequate fish linkage. Also, reviewers 

would like to see a justification for the inclusion of the nine physical habitat parameters 

listed in objective 2, task D.

The proposal states that "this extensive data collection effort would support the effort to 

validate the Ecological Diagnosis Treatment model (EDT)" and "much of the subbasin 

scale restoration recommendations developed by the FWP will be based on the EDT 

model". However reviewers did not see further mention of how that might occur, or of the 

staff that would be involved, in this or any other proposal currently being reviewed in the 

Province. The proposal's response indicates that Watershed staff have no plans to be 

directly involved in the modeling effort

The ISRP emphasizes our support of the proponents of projects in the Mountain Snake 

Province to work with all Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Montana Provinces to develop 

compatible monitoring and evaluation procedures with common field procedures and 

probabilistic site selection for the entire Columbia River Basin. A proven model for this 

effort is the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds Monitoring Program. 

The implementation of such a high-level coordinated plan throughout the Columbia River 

Basin would likely be an unprecedented advance in research and a distinct benefit to the 

resource. Collocation of study sites for fish counts, aquatic habitat, and water quality would 

enhance the region’s ability to draw meaningful conclusions from the array of M&E projects 

currently underway. The Nez Perce Tribe and the Idaho Department of Fish & Game could 

have lead roles in development of such a plan (see final reviews and the responses to the 

initial ISRP reviews of Projects 28051 “Assess and Monitor Steelhead in the Middle Fork 

Salmon River Subbasin” and 199107300 “Idaho Natural Production Monitoring and 

Evaluation”).
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

95

The proponents should interact closely with Project 199801600 in the Columbia Plateau (Jim 

Ruzycki and Richard Carmichael, ODFW, “Monitor Natural Escapement and Productivity 

of John Day Basin Spring Chinook Salmon.” ODFW revised this proposal to create a 

comprehensive plan to include all monitoring and evaluation for all anadromous salmonid 

lifestages and habitats in the John Day Basin. The M&E program in the John Day Basin is 

apparently developing as a model for the Oregon section of the Columbia Basin and is being 

carefully reviewed by agencies in Washington. 

The ISRP recommends that the proponents consider using aquatic habitat data collection 

protocols recommended in Johnson et al. (2001) (Johnson, D. H., N. Pittman, E. Wilder, J. 

A. Silver, R. W. Plotnikoff, B. C. Mason, K. K. Jones, P. Roger, T. A. O’Neil, C. Barrett. 

2001. Inventory and Monitoring of Salmon Habitat in the Pacific Northwest - Directory and 

Synthesis of Protocols for Management/Research and Volunteers in Washington, Oregon, 

Idaho, Montana, and British Columbia. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Olympia, Washington. 211pp).

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

(none)

Project ID: 28046

Impacts of Salmon Carcasses on Chinook Salmon and Watershed Restoration in Subbasins 

of the Clearwater River

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries and Watershed

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: We propose to study critical first steps in evaluating the effects of MDN 

on inland watersheds in the Clearwater River Basin where recent subbasin summaries have 

determined that salmon numbers are low and nutrient limitation exists.

FY02 Request: $179,002

3 YR Estimate: $756,502

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part as amended. A pilot study would be more appropriate, starting at a smaller 

scale (e.g., small tributary or stream channels with control and treatment, or mesocosm). The 

isotope study is to be omitted and funding should be reduced. The proponents responded 

with a thoroughly revised proposal that addressed our concerns and suggestions adequately, 

including partnerships. The project would increase the sample size of the NMFS study, but 

because this project is a repeat of NMFS studies and those elsewhere the ISRP views it as 

low priority. It may be advisable to wait a few years for the results of the other studies. The 

budget needs review.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

96

Project ID: 28047

Restore and Protect Red River Watershed

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries Watershed

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Restore and protect the Red River Watershed for the benefit of both 

resident and anadromous fish using an overall watershed approach. Restoration and 

protection efforts will be done cooperatively with the Nez Perce National Forest.

FY02 Request: $199,567

3 YR Estimate: $770,962

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The project will conduct watershed analysis (actually EAWS, Ecosystem Analysis 

at the Watershed Scale), then plan remedies for problems revealed in that process. Most of 

the watershed assessment and planning was proposed for 2002, 2003, and 2004. In response 

to ISRP comment, the watershed assessment process will be accelerated for completion in 

2002. The construction/treatment phase is to begin in 2004 (restricted at first to obvious 

needs for road rehab and culvert replacement) and last at least through 2006. It is not clear 

how the out-year budget can be set before watershed assessment and planning are 

completed, so the construction proposal should be deferred to the next funding cycle. 

M&E is proposed for 2005 and 2006. The reviewers recommend, however, that monitoring 

start before construction, so as to compare pre- and post-project conditions (sponsor did 

not respond on this issue) and be coordinated with Project 28045 as sponsor’s response 

indicates will be done. 

The reviewers recommend that the sponsor key the watershed analysis closely to habitat 

needs of critical life stages of the fishes involved. (In this regard, the reviewers alert the 

sponsor that an ISRP programmatic statement concerning watershed assessment—including 

EAWS—may soon be issued to help the process.) There is something different (and 

apparently more costly) about the approach in the Red River subbasin compared to others, 

e.g., Hood River.

The proponents are referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the 

specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on 

Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project addresses RPA 154 and 400. The watershed assessment should be completed 

prior to funding implementation activities. The budget for the implementation phase should 

be refined, as appropriate, based on the results of the assessment.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

97

Project ID: 28048

Protect and Restore Crooked Fork Creek to Colt Killed Analysis Area

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries and Watershed

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: This project will protect, restore, and return critical spawning and 

rearing habitat using a holistic approach beginning with a comprehensive watershed 

assessment, which will target restoration projects. Projects coordinated with USFS and 

PCTC.

FY02 Request: $423,365

3 YR Estimate: $1,557,065

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments:

Fundable. This proposal to protect and restore fish habitat in a system of streams is 

thorough, detailed, and well supported with references. Deficiencies of organization in the 

proposal were corrected in the response. Watershed analysis is not finished (USFS started it 

for some drainages; it may be about 1/3 complete), and EAWS (Ecosystem Analysis at the 

Watershed Scale) is proposed within the project. Previous analyses of habitat problems 

(including road and culvert alteration needs) serve as a sound basis for the proposal in the 

meantime. Thus, although results from the EAWS must be the basis for the full project, 

approval of the initial work proposed appears more justified than in some other projects 

where watershed analysis has not been finished. The watershed analysis should be closely 

keyed to habitat needs of critical life stages of the fishes involved. (In this regard, the 

reviewers alert the sponsor that an ISRP programmatic statement concerning watershed 

assessment—including EAWS—may soon be issued to help the process.) Regarding M&E, 

in the long term, fish-monitoring data will be crucial in determining efficacy of the 

restoration. Therefore, the project needs to demonstrate close ties to the NPT and other fish 

monitoring projects in the watershed and province (e.g. NPT projects 1988335003, 

199703000, IDFG project 199107300, and the ISS studies). There must also be clear 

coordination with Project 28045. The response addressed those issues.

To assist in establishing a sound basinwide monitoring program, proponents are referred to 

the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic 

Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and 

Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

There is a 5% personnel cost share by the USFS for FY2002 that was not listed in the 

budget portion of the proposal. This project addresses RPA 150 and 154.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

98

Project ID: 28060

Assess Stream Quality for Salmonid Recovery in the Lower Clearwater Subbasin

Sponsor: Nez Perce Soil and Water Conservation District

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Complete a stream health assessment in order to identify priority areas 

for fish habitat restoration.

FY02 Request: $95,148 (CBFWA Recommendation: $95,148)

3 YR Estimate: $145,648 (CBFWA Recommendation: $164,648)

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (Low Priority)

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable (Low Priority)

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable (relatively low priority) if local watershed councils are formed as part of this 

project in conjunction with the Clearwater Focus Program and the Clearwater Subbasin 

Focus Watershed Program. The project goal is to complete a stream health assessment in 

order to identify priority areas for fish habitat restoration using the SVAP – stream visual 

assessment protocol (NRCS) – in six small lower Clearwater mainstem tributaries. The 

Clearwater Watershed Assessment does not get to the needed resolution on these small 

streams.

The primary value of the project is educational, performing the sorely-needed role of 

involving private landowners who will be pivotal in any continued rehabilitation of these six 

streams that produce wild A-run steelhead. An earlier demonstration project in Hatwai 

Creek has proven to be very effective in engaging local landowners. 

The SVAP may be a good educational and public involvement tool, but elsewhere by itself 

its snapshot approach has added virtually nothing to what is already known. To keep that 

from occurring, proponents of this project have secured a significant collaborative 

commitment by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to concurrently assess fish 

populations. That significantly enhances the proposal in the reviewers eyes.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

(none)
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

99

Project ID: 198335000

Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Complete construction and begin operation of Nez Perce Tribal 

Hatchery supplementation program to assist in the recovery and restoration of non-listed 

spring chinook and ESA listed Snake River fall chinook in the Clearwater Basin.

FY02 Request: $3,485,000

3 YR Estimate: $10,245,000

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part at the Phase 1 level only. 

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree with CBFWA. Low Priority. Fundable at the 

Phase 1 level only. 

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable at the Phase 1 level only. Future funding likely to be contingent upon proposals 

better addressing longstanding ISRP concerns from previous reviews. 

The proposal and response did not sufficiently address longstanding ISRP concerns. The 

applicant relies on “policy decision” rather than on scientific justification for the project. 

Specifically, the ISRP’s previous questions were, (1) “This project focuses on a largely 

untested concept on too large a scale”, (2) “the conditions primarily responsible for limiting 

the resource (the salmon population in this case) be identified, and (3) that it be 

demonstrated that the proposed project will remove those limiting conditions or circumvent 

them.” 

The NPTH has two phases of construction management. These phases are the result of 

issues arising during the Final Design process. During that process, the NPPC approved 

construction of a smaller scale, more temporary NPTH program, based on concerns by the 

ISRP in their FY2000 review. Implementation of the full-scale production program (Phase 

Two) will be dependent on M&E results from the first phase of the program. Initial 

production numbers were decreased and facility infrastructure was designed to meet a 

reduced cost. It is important that the NPTH production remain at the reduced Phase I level 

throughout this initial review and evaluation period. 

The ISRP remains concerned that planning for the hatchery and its M&E include all possible 

management and response alternatives including termination of the program due to either 

success or failure in achieving program objectives. A noted in FY00 review, the ISRP 

recommends that a full and consistent decision tree be developed as the program moves 

forward. The tree should specify all triggers, including intermediate levels and timelines that 

if not achieved would forestall Phase 2 construction, or even lead to termination of the 

program itself. The history of fisheries management in the Columbia River Basin is replete 

with projects that failed to achieve their objectives in part or even completely. Thus, in spite 

of the need for this project, and the enthusiasm of its implementers, it would seem prudent 

to plan for all possible outcomes. 

Another lingering concern is that the project focuses on a largely untested concept on too 

large a scale. We note that Phase I production objectives have been scaled down in response 

to this concern from the ISRP. Over the last decade, the Basin has entered into 3 substantial 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

100

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 factors that limit 

salmon production.

Many of the asserted “innovative” approaches (i.e., the NATUREs concept) are presently 

supported by a small literature base that is limited in the scale of studies and by the 

subsequent inferences to overall hatchery practices. In general, the approaches have not 

been proven to yield greater survival to adulthood of released fish than standard practice. 

Project advocates also claim that, by keeping within natural “carrying capacities,” they will 

avoid negatively impacting populations in nature. 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.

Project ID: 198335003

Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Monitor and evaluate results of the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery so that 

operations can be adaptively managed to optimize hatchery and natural production, sustain 

harvest, and minimize ecological impacts.

FY02 Request: $1,884,430 (CBFWA Recommendation: $1,974,430)

3 YR Estimate: $6,087,194 (CBFWA Recommendation: $6,177,194)

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part (at level consistent with 

Phase 1)

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part, the response was adequate. Should be funded at a level appropriate to the 

Phase 1 effort of the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Project 198335000. 

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Fall chinook monitoring only.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

101

Project ID: 198740700

Dworshak Integrated Rule Curves/M&E

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Refine the Dworshak Rule Curve Evaluation Model, use the model as a 

tool to help identify appropriate integrated operation (Integrated Rule Curve), and develop a 

comprehensive long-term monitoring and evaluation plan for Dworshak Reservoir.

FY02 Request: $201,291

3 YR Estimate: $541,291

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. A response was not requested. The reviewers concerns are similar to those 

expressed in the FY2000 review. In addition, evidence was presented that reservoir 

operation is driven by the BiOp and by the power system emergency, rather than being 

regulated by a rule curve. It will not be useful to undertake the proposed efforts (which 

were not clearly expressed) to adjust a process that is already burdened by too many 

conflicting influences. No significant improvement is likely.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

The Resident Fish Caucus suggests that past investments in this project would be lost if the 

model were not completed. The resulting tool will be useful in assessing tradeoffs between 

biological impacts in Dworshak Reservoir and the river downstream. Although the federal 

Biological Opinions (BiOps) and electrical generation tend to drive the system, models of 

this type have been useful in the development and implementation of BiOps on the 

operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System.

Project ID: 199303501

Enhance Fish, Riparian, and Wildlife Habitat within the Red River Watershed

Sponsor: Idaho County Soil and Water Conservation District

Subbasin: Clearwater

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.

FY02 Request: $561,000

3 YR Estimate: $1,666,000

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority/ Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in Part. The project relocates artificially ditched parts of a creek into former 

meanders, plants riparian vegetation, and excludes livestock from stream banks. In addition, 

it has major research and communication/education components. Need for the three 

elementary managements in such situations is generally obvious and well understood in the 

field of salmonid habitat restoration. They have been practiced and evaluated elsewhere for 

years, but should be based on a watershed analysis—which still is not complete here. The 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

102

EAWS (Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale) proposed in project 28047 should be 

done sooner.

The project’s communications component should be discontinued as non-essential. The 

ISRP also recommends against more construction at this point and against any other new 

work (except improved biological monitoring) in this funding cycle. Instead, future 

submission for such might be appropriate after the EAWS is completed and M&E 

(including scrutiny of fish response) has proceeded. The project is fundable in part for the 

EAWS, for activities that Council staff would identify in the O&M budget as necessary to 

"preserve investment in project", for implementation and effectiveness monitoring for 

phases I-IV, and for finishing evaluation of the four treatments and producing peer-reviewed 

reports/papers.

Most of the project’s research is unwarranted. The reviewers recommend that it be reduced 

to basic M&E, and that M&E deficiencies in biological monitoring be corrected. The project 

is particularly lacking in biological concept, planning, direction, and analysis. These 

shortcomings are notable in view of the project title’s words: “Enhance Fish, Riparian, and 

Wildlife Habitat.” The project goal is described as restoring “natural physical and biological 

processes,” but, except for revegetation, the processes discussed in the proposal are almost 

solely physical. Biological processes would involve survival, growth, reproduction, and 

behavior, which are not addressed in the project. The project needs guidance from 

ecologists. It remains a concern of reviewers that the M&E design depends almost solely on 

detecting trends rather than having adequate experimental controls. Some of the monitoring 

for trends began only after the treatments were done, thus missing pre-treatment data. 

Reviewers recognize value of the program in furthering interactions among groups and 

agencies, including private landowners, and in evaluating some restoration techniques. 

However, because the project includes only minimal attention to the biotic community, 

especially fish, we are concerned that project performance does not provide a satisfactory 

template for expansion here or for work elsewhere.

The ISRP reviewers note concurrence by CBFWA comments that “The results of the 

EAWS . . . should guide any future instream work for this project. Until that assessment is 

completed, restoration of the lower channel should be considered a ‘Recommended Action’ 

[low ranking].”

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

CBFWA supports the acquisition of the conservation easements and continuation of O&M 

and M&E for the first phases of this project. These tasks should be considered High 

Priority. The results of the EAWS developed through project number 28047 should guide 

any future instream work for this project. Until that assessment is completed, restoration of 

the lower channel should be considered a Recommended Action. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

103

Project ID: 199501300

Resident Fish Substitution Program

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Increase fish harvest opportunities to partially mitigate for anadromous 

fisheries losses resulting from the "permanent" migration blockage posed by Dworshak Dam 

on the North Fork Clearwater River.

FY02 Request: $243,355

3 YR Estimate: $1,072,186

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part to maintain the fish stocking and identify sites that could produce better 

results than the present ponds. This project continues to need significant remedial work. The 

ISRP would consider the project fundable only after submission of a response that fully 

addresses ISRP preliminary-review comments and present comments.

This project’s purpose is to provide stocked trout for angling in ponds as partial substitution 

for destroyed salmon fisheries. The project’s record of performance is poor. Its efforts have 

been extremely inefficient. The program buys hatchery trout of table-food size and stocks 

them in three ponds. Two of the ponds are poor fish habitat and are yielding very poor 

results—far less pounds of trout harvested than pounds stocked. The third provides 

somewhat better conditions, but still less harvested than stocked. The long-term plan is to 

build 6 to 12 more ponds, but whether truly suitable sites exist is questionable. 

The sponsor submitted a revised proposal but did not deal with ISRP comments on a pointby-point basis. Some specifics on the sponsor’s response and remaining deficiencies in the 

revised-but-still-inadequate proposal include: The proposal should clearly summarize in 

tables and graphs the results of all of the project’s past monitoring. The revised proposal 

showed improvement in monitoring components. However, the ISRP recommendation was 

and remains that monitoring fish harvest should be omitted for at least the next two years 

because such monitoring has already amply shown what the results are. Rather than follow 

the recommendation, the sponsor outlined a reduced level of harvest monitoring without 

justifying it. The sponsor should respond to the ISRP comments point by point.

Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are confusing, perhaps mainly because each of these sections 

contains tasks (zero-budgeted) that are appropriate only for other sections, thus obscuring 

meaning with extraneous material. In other words, only objectives and tasks truly involved in 

a section should be listed there. Section 8 shows personnel at 2.1 FTEs, but Section 10 

shows 3 “full time” personnel. 

Although costs are not central to this scientific review, reviewers felt compelled to raise the 

issue of costs and benefits on this project. The harvest is costing around $30 or more per 

pound of fish harvested, assuming the FY 2000 expenditure was a bit less than the requested 

FY 2002 budget. Costs toward building new ponds contribute to the apparent inefficiency, 

but those planning and design costs have persisted for years, these and construction costs 

would continue under the present plan, and they could not be amortized to bring total cost 

per pound down to a reasonable level for many, many more years, if ever. The budget of the 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

104

revised proposal shows a decrease for FY 2002 and then a jump over the original for the 

out-years. This should be justified.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

(none)

Project ID: 199607702

Protect and Restore Lolo Creek Watershed

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries Watershed Program

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Protect, restore, and enhance the Lolo Creek Watershed to provide 

quality habitat for anadromous and resident fish. This will be accomplished by watershed 

restoration projects such as culvert replacement, road obliteration, and streambank 

stabilization.

FY02 Request: $502,192

3 YR Estimate: $1,924,921

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. According to the sponsor’s response, general watershed analysis was completed in 

September 2001, and refined EAWS (Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale) is 

proceeding. The EAWS must allow identification of critical salmonid life stage usage in the 

watershed and geographic portions of the basin that warrant restoration and protection 

activity. Factors limiting salmonid life stages should be identified. Further work should not 

continue until the EAWS is complete and there is clear indication of how this project will be 

monitored. 

The response seems to indicate that the M&E procedures will be upgraded, in that they will 

be done by or coordinated with the appropriate monitoring projects, such as 28045 and 

198335003. The reviewers caution that it is essential to have the advice of a biometrician and 

experimental analyst. Monitoring and evaluation by means of modeling approaches, as 

suggested, can be instructive, but a control and treatment comparison of flow regimes, 

temperature, sedimentation and the fish response must be included. Problems of probably 

confounding with results of supplementation are evident in the projects M&E. Likewise, an 

analysis of risk and uncertainty would aid reviews and planning (i.e., indicate the amount of 

work required before a positive impact is measurable, and the likelihood of failure). 

To assist in establishing a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are referred 

to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic 

Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and 

Evaluation. 

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Project addresses RPA 500. Completion of a watershed assessment should be prioritized. 

The budget for the implementation phase should be refined, as appropriate, based on the 

results of the assessment.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

105

Project ID: 199607703

Protecting and Restoring the Waw'aatamnima (Fishing)(Squaw) Creek to 'Imnaamatnoon 

(Legendary Bear)(Papoose) Creek Watersheds Analysis Area

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries Watershed Program

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Protecting and restoring the Waw'aatamnima (Fishing) Creek to 

'Imnaamatnoon (Legendary Bear) Creek Watersheds Analysis Area by using a holistic 

approach, based on a completed watershed analysis, is the overall goal of this on-going 

project.

FY02 Request: $489,300

3 YR Estimate: $1,518,500

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The proposal was generally good, the responses adequate. Note that this project is 

apparently guided by a completed watershed assessment, as CBFWA has commented. The 

project has demonstrated an excellent ability to decommission roads. Future proposals 

should also show results in terms of fish for the work done since 1996. 

Response to comment #3 and communications on the field tour indicate project personnel 

may have an unjustified degree of concern that logs across streams block passage of 

anadromous salmonid adults. Some of this concern might be alleviated by learning the actual 

leaping and squirming abilities of these fish from first-hand observation and primary 

literature sources (not relying on agency “manuals” and such, which often contain out-dated 

and illusory material). Surveying old artificial habitat devices is great for learning what not to 

do in the future, but staff ought not be needlessly nervous about presence of failed 

structures and should save money when possible by not bothering to demolish them. None 

of the proposal’s references was a primary literature source on structural habitat for 

salmonids; future proposals should contain relevant discussion of comprehensive 

information from such sources.

To assist in establishing a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are referred 

to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic 

Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and 

Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project addresses RPA 500. The implementation activities for this project are guided by 

a completed watershed assessment. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

106

Project ID: 199607705

Restore McComas Meadows/Meadow Creek Watershed

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries Watershed Program

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Protect and restore critical riparian/stream habitat in Meadow Creek 

thru streambank stabilization, riparian re-vegetation, road decommissioning, culvert 

replacement/repair, and native plant restoration.

FY02 Request: $573,832

3 YR Estimate: $1,221,301

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable but adequacy of M and E is tied into ability of project 28045 to develop a sound 

monitoring plan. They did not clearly define the experimental design for monitoring and 

evaluation, but, like others, referred to the NPT M&E plan, which is dominated by 

supplementation evaluation and not habitat rehabilitation effectiveness, or a mix of several 

treatments in some of the subbasins. It is unclear how these will be separated in the analysis. 

Although M and E linkages (“tiers”) are provided in the set of NPT habitat proposals, this 

proposal and the set of NPT habitat proposals need to demonstrate closer ties to the NPT 

and other fish monitoring projects in the watershed and province (e.g. NPT projects 

1988335003, 199703000, IDFG project 199107300, and the ISS studies). In the long term, 

fish-monitoring data will be critical in determining the efficacy of the restoration activities. 

There is a need to describe clear coordination between this proposal, proposal 28045, and 

the NPT fisheries and other entities’ monitoring programs; and demonstrate how data and 

analysis will be shared between the projects. In addition, see the ISRP's comments on 28045 

and programmatic comments on M&E at the beginning of this report. Project 28045, to 

which the response referred, does not indicate a clear treatment-control approach to 

evaluation of projects like 199607705. Snorkel counts for recruits based on parr density or 

redd counts do not represent adequate response variables for this type of work unless 

adjusted for density dependence and based as a function of spawner density. There is no 

clear indication of success from past efforts, which should be complete by now.

To assist in establishing a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are referred 

to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic 

Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and 

Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project addresses RPA 500. The implementation activities for this project are guided by 

a completed watershed assessment. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

107

1. Project ID: 199608600

Clearwater Focus Program

Sponsor: Idaho Soil Conservation Commission

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Complete subbasin assessment develop subbasin plan, coordinate public 

review and input, and coordinate implementation projects

FY02 Request: $103,626

3 YR Estimate: $310,878

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

See 199706000 below – same comments apply.

2. Project ID: 199706000

Clearwater Subbasin Focus Watershed Program - NPT

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Manage and implement a comprehensive system to coordinate multiple 

jurisdictions, agencies, and private landowners within the Clearwater River Subbasin. These 

efforts will protect, restore, and enhance anadromous fisheries habitat.

FY02 Request: $218,000

3 YR Estimate: $702,000

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable, but they need to raise their level of effort in coordinating assessments, 

prescriptions, rehabilitation works, and particularly in monitoring and evaluation. The PAC 

has broad membership and could be a lead in the Subbasin Planning effort, including M&E, 

which is missing here. This project should demonstrate performance by the next review 

cycle otherwise it should be terminated. Help from a contract biometrician must be obtained 

in planning the overall M&E as well as stock assessment work.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

These two projects coordinate assessment and implementation activities in the Clearwater 

subbasin. The project does not fit the criteria well since most of the implementation 

activities that are coordinated by this project are implemented through other projects. This 

project addresses RPA 152 and 154.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

108

Project ID: 199901400

Little Canyon Creek Subwatershed-Steelhead Trout Habitat Improvement Project

Sponsor: Lewis Soil Conservation District

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Reduce sedimentation to improve instream habitat in Lower Little 

Canyon Creek and the lower Clearwater River, and improve upland water storage by 

implementing best management practices for sediment reduction and water retention.

FY02 Request: $236,500

3 YR Estimate: $649,500

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (low priority)

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable but Low Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable but low priority. This proposal would continue to work with private landowners to 

implement agricultural and ranching best management practices in Little Canyon Creek, a 

tributary to Big Canyon Creek. Closely linked proposals are 199901500 for Big Canyon by 

the Nez Perce SCD and 199901600 by the Nez Perce Tribal Watershed program.

On the positive side, a planning document (Big Canyon Aquatic Assessment) has been done 

within the past few years by the Center for Environmental Education of Washington State 

University as part of project 199901600. Also, there is evidence of good interagency 

cooperation and enthusiastic, effective staff.

On the other hand, the aquatic assessment mentioned above (that was supplied to the ISRP 

in the response process) was never intended as a watershed assessment and does not 

function as such. It instead follows the guidelines of the Oregon Watershed Assessment 

Manual that "uses a cookbook approach that walks the user through procedures that assess 

natural processes or features related to fish habitat and water quality. It was designed to be 

used by the average citizen interested in watersheds". While providing good insight into the 

geography and land-use patterns of the drainage, it is nearly all generic when discussing 

potential limiting factors and includes no fish or fish habitat data. In the view of the ISRP it 

does not even marginally function as a standard watershed assessment. However the ISRP 

felt that work on this project was justified (at low priority) by the planning done in 

preparation of the 1995 Big Canyon Creek Environmental Assessment by the Nez Perce 

County Soil and Water Conservation District, and by the fact the watershed appears to have 

reasonable fish production potential.

The monitoring still needs to be described in finer detail; see ISRP programmatic statement.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project is one component of a watershed approach to habitat restoration and therefore 

there is significant cost share that was not reported in the proposal. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

109

Project ID: 199901500

Restoring Anadromous Fish Habitat in Big Canyon Watershed

Sponsor: Nez Perce Soil and Water Conservation District

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Implement agricultural and fish habitat Best Management Practices in 

the Big Canyon watershed with the goals of reducing sediment and nutrient delivery, 

improving water retention in uplands, reducing stream temperature, and restoring riparian 

function.

FY02 Request: $193,452 (CBFWA Recommendation: $203,452)

3 YR Estimate: $600,356 (CBFWA Recommendation: $610,356)

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable 

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Project staff demonstrated enthusiasm for working with private landowners in the watershed 

to implement best management practices for agriculture and ranching. Twelve contracts 

involving 1,960 acres were entered into in the years 2000 and 2001 as part of this program.

Nevertheless, reviewers encountered several red flags in evaluating this work. Supplemental 

material was requested and received during the response process for project 199901500. 

The 1995 Big Canyon Creek Environmental Assessment helped reviewers appreciate the 

"groundwork" involved in the planning process by the Soil and Water Conservation District. 

However, that EA included a 1994 report by Interfluve Inc. (funded by BLM) regarding 

geomorphologic measures needed to fix a problem in Big Canyon Creek: 7 miles in the 

central portion of the drainage goes dry every summer. The report indicates this was the 

result of a 1965 flood that removed fine sediment from the valley floor, and now the lack of 

fines results in subterranean flow, with those two factors now also limiting establishment of 

new riparian vegetation. Reviewers were not aware of this situation prior to the response 

process, and are now concerned that establishing a program to reduce sediment input from 

headwaters (via this proposal) will do relatively little to fix the real problem for Big Canyon 

anadromous fish populations.

Watershed assessment is another red flag. As part of a companion project, a planning 

document (Big Canyon Aquatic Assessment) has been prepared by the Center for 

Environmental Education of Washington State University. However, this report (examined 

by the ISRP in the response process) was never intended as a watershed assessment and 

does not function as such. It instead follows the guidelines of the Oregon Watershed 

Assessment Manual that "uses a cookbook approach that walks the user through procedures 

that assess natural processes or features related to fish habitat and water quality. It was 

designed to be used by the average citizen interested in watersheds". While providing good 

insight into the geography and land-use patterns of the drainage, it is nearly all generic when 

discussing potential limiting factors and includes no fish or fish habitat data. In the view of 

the ISRP it does not even marginally function as a standard watershed assessment.

An ongoing concern of reviewers is being able to attribute improvements in soil and water 

management to fish and to fish habitat; the proposal and response do not show evidence 

that this difficult issue is satisfactorily resolved. See ISRP programmatic statement on M&E.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

110

Project ID: 199901600

Protect and Restore Big Canyon Creek Watershed

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries Watershed Program

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: This project will protect, restore and return critical spawning and rearing 

habitat using a ridge top to ridge top approach, based on a completed watershed assessment

FY02 Request: $355,000

3 YR Estimate: $1,588,300

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Continuation funding is requested for the replacement of culverts, obliteration of roads, and 

fence construction. Reviewers initially encountered many difficulties in reading this 

proposal, such as repeated reference to Lapwai Creek rather than Big Canyon. A revised 

proposal was submitted that provided clarification, but many concerns, primarily regarding 

the assessment approach and potential gains for fish, remain. 

This project has been underway for three years and funded preparation of a planning 

document (Big Canyon Aquatic Assessment) by the Center for Environmental Education of 

Washington State University. However, this report (examined by the ISRP in the response 

process) was never intended as a watershed assessment and does not function as such. It 

instead follows the guidelines of the Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual that "uses a 

cookbook approach that walks the user through procedures that assess natural processes or 

features related to fish habitat and water quality. It was designed to be used by the average 

citizen interested in watersheds". While providing good insight into the geography and 

land-use patterns of the drainage, it is nearly all generic when discussing potential limiting 

factors and includes no fish or fish habitat data. In the view of the ISRP it does not even 

marginally function as an adequate watershed assessment.

The proposal shows virtually no direct ties to anadromous or resident fish and reviewers are 

uncertain of the streams potential to produce steelhead. Supplemental material requested 

from the Nez Perce SCD during the response process for project 199901500 included a 

1994 report by Interfluve Inc. (funded by BLM) regarding geomorphologic measures needed 

to fix a problem in Big Canyon Creek: 7 miles in the central portion of the drainage goes dry 

every summer. The report indicates this was the result of a 1965 flood that removed fine 

sediment from the valley floor, and now the lack of fines results in subterranean flow, with 

those two factors now also limiting establishment of new riparian vegetation. The ISRP is 

concerned that this issue was not discussed on the field tour or in the proposal, and is 

confused further when the Big Canyon Aquatic assessment states that the greatest densities 

of juvenile steelhead occur in the central portion of Big Canyon Creek. Overall, the ISRP 

sees little in this proposal that argues effectively for its continuance.

An ongoing concern of reviewers is being able to attribute improvements in habitat 

management to fish and to fish habitat; the proposal and response do not show evidence 

that this difficult issue is satisfactorily resolved. See ISRP programmatic statement on M&E.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

111

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

A significant cost share is identified in the narrative of the proposal but not in the budget 

portion of the proposal. The implementation activities for this project are guided by a 

completed watershed assessment. This project addresses RPA 154 and 500.

Project ID: 199901700

Protect and Restore Lapwai Creek Watershed

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries Watershed Program

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: This project will protect, restore and return critical spawning and rearing 

fish habitat using a ridge top to ridge top approach, based on a completed watershed 

assessment.

FY02 Request: $436,600

3 YR Estimate: $1,669,900

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (high priority)

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. Continuation funding is requested to focus on the following on-the-ground 

activities: participate in replacing a bridge, replace three culverts, obliterate approximately 10 

miles of road per year, build 2 miles of fence, and plant 5 acres of riparian vegetation per 

year. Replacing the bridge will be of great benefit to fish by reestablishing stream access for 

anadromous fish. 

Reviewers felt that funding this project should be highest priority of all the lower Clearwater 

fish habitat proposals. An aquatic assessment and other NPT stream survey reports have 

been completed and reviewed by the ISRP. The panel feels that although this analysis falls 

short of the watershed assessment template typically expected, under the circumstances for 

Lapwai Creek there is adequate, if not ideal, rehabilitation guidance. CBFWA reviewers also 

felt there was adequate watershed assessment for proposed activities to continue.

Reviewers concur with project sponsors that the Lapwai Creek system has a great potential 

for increasing anadromous smolt production if habitat is restored. Many opportunities for 

that effort currently exist, including for stream segments where fish access is blocked and for 

those riparian resources adjacent to the former Camas Prairie Railroad. Good working 

cooperation among project proponents was evident. 

Monitoring issues remain. Further, the reviewers note that transects only 50 m long are 

probably too short for obtaining meaningful fish population results. The proponents are 

referred to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on 

Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring 

and Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

The implementation activities for this project are guided by a completed watershed 

assessment. This project addresses RPA 400 and 500.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

112

Project ID: 28059

Restoring anadromous fish habitat in the Lapwai Creek watershed.

Sponsor: Nez Perce Soil and Water Conservation District

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: The project will implement BMPs on agricultural lands to reduce 

sediment, nutrients, and stream temperature. In addition, the project will improve low 

summer flows by installing BMPs for water retention in the uplands.

FY02 Request: $372,060

3 YR Estimate: $961,116

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (high priority) (move 28059 below this)

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. This is a high priority tributary for rehabilitation efforts because of production 

potential. Lapwai Creek system has a great potential for increasing anadromous smolt 

production if habitat is restored; this new project should help accelerate progress toward that 

goal. An adequate watershed assessment has been completed for the watershed (see 

comments for proposal 199901700). Proceed first with the implementation of those BMPs 

that are in closest proximity to stream-courses and will have the most effective and direct 

instream or riparian benefits. There should be a stronger indication of comprehension and 

summary of the M&E task (e.g., response variables, methods) then what was indicated. 

Manuals of standard procedures for all phases of watershed assessment, prescription, 

rehabilitation, and evaluation are required here and throughout. 

To assist in establishing a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are referred 

to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic 

Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and 

Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project compliments the activities proposed in project number 199901700. This 

project focuses on the water quality affects by private landowners.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

113

Project ID: 199901800

Characterize and quantify residual steelhead in the Clearwater River, Idaho

Sponsor: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Describe unsuccessful hatchery smolts released into the Clearwater 

basin. Assess potential negative interactions with wild steelhead and recommend 

modifications to hatchery practices to produce more effective smolts and reduce 

hatchery/wild interactions.

FY02 Request: $101,950

3 YR Estimate: $134,950

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. This project commenced in 1999 to monitor the emigration success of Dworshak 

National Fish Hatchery steelhead smolts and to assess the ecology and potential impacts of 

those fish that do not emigrate. The proposal is to complete data gathering in the 2002 field 

season and write up results in 2003. Despite its long-standing concerns and critical 

comments regarding experimental design in this year's preliminary review, the ISRP 

recognizes that there is value to be gained in completing the study and making its results 

available to biologists and managers in the region.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project addresses RPA 184. This project was required by a previous biological opinion.

Project ID: 200002800

Evaluate Status of Pacific Lamprey in the Clearwater River Drainage, Idaho

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: To determine distribution, population status, and life history 

information for Pacific Lamprey in the Clearwater River subbasin.

FY02 Request: $144,550

3 YR Estimate: $464,550

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. No response was requested. The methods, which are reasonably well detailed, are 

aimed at evaluation of background information for various life history stages of the animal. 

This proposal addresses a need for information in a systematic way. It provides good 

scientific/technical background and justification, and appears to be well coordinated with 

other projects. The proposal requests "full" ($160K) funding through FY 04 and then 

reduced funding for FY05. However, this study should be complete in no more than three 

field seasons (00 – 02) with some wrap-up on the end. At the presentation it was noted that 

a UI grad student will be on the project. If they have not yet started it might be reasonable 

to go another year, but this is approaching a point where the Council and CBFWA may want 

to consider if the project is too expensive for the information gained.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

114

Project ID: 200003400

Protect and Restore the North Lochsa Face Analysis Area Watersheds

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Protect and Restore the North Lochsa Face Watershed by working 

within an overall watershed approach, based on comprehensive studies of the analysis area. 

The overall goal of this project is to increase anadromous fish populations.

FY02 Request: $285,835

3 YR Estimate: $996,862

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. Responses adequate—except ISRP still has reservations about adequacy of the 

M&E. Sponsor should take measures to improve M&E. This is a road obliteration project 

on a massive scale. The project is well organized. Mass wasting is primary contributing factor 

to sedimentation input. Justification for project location was a good addition to the 

presentation and should be included in other presentations. The NPT is in a lawsuit against 

FS over an EIS counting joint NPT/FS road obliteration and improvements as mitigation 

for proposed building of new FS roads; the NPT position is that BPA funding should not be 

used to promote FS roading and logging.

To assist in establishing a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are referred 

to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic 

Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and 

Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

CBFWA's concern with transfer of information from this project has been adequately 

addressed in the response to the ISRP.

Project ID: 200003500

Rehabilitate Newsome Creek Watershed - South Fork Clearwater River

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries Watershed

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Protect and enhance Newsome Creek Watershed for the benefit of both 

resident and anadromous fish using an overall watershed approach. This project is a 

cooperative project between the Nez Perce Tribe and the Nez Perce National Forest.

FY02 Request: $287,732

3 YR Estimate: $1,424,334

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The proposal was extremely well written, so logically organized and clearly put 

that it made review a pleasure. The writing should serve as an example to others. Responses 

to ISRP comments were adequate except on the M & E issue. This is a road 

decommissioning and culvert remedy project that includes possible stream channel 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

115

restructuring to remedy dredge mining damage. The latter objective is laudably planned to be 

abandoned if feasibility study shows it to be warranted. Nevertheless, the Council should 

look at budget carefully; 1.4M for the channel work seems excessive. Logically, funding 

cannot be estimated until study and planning are done. 

To assist in establishing a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are referred 

to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic 

Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and 

Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Completion of the watershed assessment should be prioritized. Partially addresses RPA 154. 

The budget for the implementation phase should be refined, as appropriate, based on the 

results of the assessment. 

Project ID: 200003600

Protect & Restore Mill Creek

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries Watershed Program

Subbasin: Clearwater

Short Description: Enhance critical riparian areas through re-vegetation and maintaining 

the cattle exclusion fence, and replacing/repairing culverts, which pose a fish/aquatic barrier 

to restore quality habitat for chinook salmon, steelhead trout, bull trout and resident fish.

FY02 Request: $105,560

3 YR Estimate: $482,511

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The project is basic habitat management and protection, with a little rehabilitation 

to correct bad practices of the past. It focuses on riparian exclusion of cattle, on 

revegetation, and on remedying culverts that block fish passage. This proposal marginally 

met the review criteria and received a fundable primarily because of the focus of restoration 

activities on well accepted methods that will likely provide fish benefits. Also, the response 

did refer to a larger-scale “landscape assessment” that identified Mill Creek as a high priority 

for restoration and specified the types of work being done. Beyond that, a fish passage 

assessment will be done for the creek to guide culvert work. Thus, the project does not 

appear to be based on a watershed assessment at a detailed enough scale. The M&E plan 

should also be bolstered, and coordinated with the overall subbasin effort in this regard. The 

response indicates that this will be done. The proponents are referred to the programmatic 

section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and 

Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Implementation activities should closely follow results from the South Fork Clearwater 

Landscape Assessment.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

116

Blue Mountain Province Proposals

Asotin

Project ID: 199401805

Continued Coordination and Implementation of Asotin Creek Watershed Projects

Sponsor: Asotin County Conservation District

Subbasin: Asotin

Short Description: Coordinate, assess, protect, restore and monitor holistically based fish 

habitat cost-share programs in Asotin Creek watershed. Continue "grass-root" public and 

agency cooperation and collaboration for identified priority projects benefiting ESA species

FY02 Request: $297,285

3 YR Estimate: $990,285

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable, however, the ISRP continues to have some reservations about the no-till 

operations, and the need to develop a more analytical approach toward evaluating (rather the 

demonstrating) the potential benefits and costs of the program. Project sponsors should 

refer to the programmatic comments in the beginning of this report for additional ISRP 

comments on the need to examine agricultural economic aspects of no-till operations. A 

solid economic analysis of the larger no-till program would lead to insights and likely a real 

demonstration project that can be held up across the basin. The biological components of 

the project are sound, particularly as coupled with the WDFW biological monitoring. 

The level of involvement by all stakeholders in the subbasin in the planning and 

implementation of restoration is impressive and could serve as a model for many other 

locations in the basin. It is reminiscent of the stakeholder involvement and cooperation we 

observed in the Hood River and John Day subbasin tours. 

The project sponsor’s response contained some useful information, but was somewhat 

rambling, making it difficult to determine the main points occasionally. The response did 

not entirely allay the ISRP’s concerns from the preliminary review concerning the role of 

active vs. passive stream restoration in projects. What role are natural processes going to 

take in the restoration programs, e.g., building stream meanders back into a system? What 

happens when a big flood arrives and moves the stream out of its newly engineered channel? 

This and many other projects are restructuring channelized and degraded streams into newly 

engineered meandering stream channels. A concern of the reviewers is that while these 

initial steps may help jump start stream rehabilitation and shoreline revegetation, future

hydrologic events and geomorphic processes may move the stream out of the newly 

engineered channel to interact with the larger local landscape and form new unanticipated 

stream courses. Efforts to retain the stream in the engineered channel, such as reinforcing 

or riprapping banks run counter to the present desire to reestablish normative process in 

stream and river corridors.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

117

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Addresses RPA 153, which requires a connection to CREP and commitments of at least 15 

years. Although there is no specific reference to sediment and temperature monitoring in 

the proposal, the work is being performed through this project by the USFS and WDFW. 

Species that benefit from the proposed work include all life stages of spring chinook, bull 

trout, and steelhead. The sponsors indicated that there are 15+ CREP commitments (15 

year commitments) in place. 

Project ID: 27001 

Asotin County Riparian Buffer and Course and Tenmile Creeks Protection and 

Implementation Project

Sponsor: Asotin County Conservation District

Subbasin: Asotin

Short Description: Implement BMP's to protect and enhance watersheds in Asotin County 

with ESA listed steelhead and chinook. Utilize cost-share from USDA, WCC and SFRB as 

match to BPA Funds to implement riparian buffers under the CREP Program (RPA Actions 

152 & 153).

FY02 Request: $294,200

3 YR Estimate: $882,600

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable, however, the ISRP continues to have some reservations about the no-till 

operations, and the need to develop a more analytical approach toward evaluating (rather the 

demonstrating) the potential benefits and costs of the program. Project sponsors should 

refer to the programmatic comments in the beginning of this report for additional ISRP 

comments on the need to examine agricultural economic aspects of no-till operations. A 

solid economic analysis of the larger no-till program would lead to insights and likely a real 

demonstration project that can be held up across the basin. The biological components of 

the project are sound, particularly as coupled with the WDFW biological monitoring. 

The level of involvement by all stakeholders in the subbasin in the planning and 

implementation of restoration is impressive and could serve as a model for many other 

locations in the basin. It is reminiscent of the stakeholder involvement and cooperation we 

observed in the Hood River and John Day subbasin tours. 

The project sponsor’s response contained some useful information, but was somewhat 

rambling, making it difficult to determine the main points occasionally. The response did 

not entirely allay the ISRP’s concerns from the preliminary review concerning the role of 

active vs. passive stream restoration in projects. What role are natural processes going to 

take in the restoration programs, e.g., building stream meanders back into a system? What 

happens when a big flood arrives and moves the stream out of its newly engineered channel? 

This and many other projects are restructuring channelized and degraded streams into newly 

engineered meandering stream channels. A concern of the reviewers is that while these 

initial steps may help jump start stream rehabilitation and shoreline revegetation, future 

hydrologic events and geomorphic processes may move the stream out of the newly 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

118

engineered channel to interact with the larger local landscape and form new unanticipated 

stream courses. Efforts to retain the stream in the engineered channel, such as reinforcing 

or riprapping banks run counter to the present desire to reestablish normative process in 

stream and river corridors.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

The proposed work would allow for stabilizing channel conditions in Tenmile and Couse 

creeks (creeks which are major producers of sediment to the Snake River). With increased 

water quality resulting from this work, the WDFW suggests there would be an increase in 

listed fall chinook spawning at the mouths of the creeks; however, reviewers expressed 

concern that measurable outcomes are absent from many of the objectives. Although the 

proposal lacks monitoring for temperature and sediment the work, such parameters are 

being monitored. The CREP leases will be for 15 years. Reviewers suggest results from this 

work would aid management from a long-term standpoint; however, the work may not be 

critical at this time. Project addresses RPA 400 and partially addresses RPA 153. 

Project ID: 27014

Protect and Restore the Asotin Creek Watershed

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries Watershed Program

Subbasin: Asotin

Short Description: Contribute to an on-going watershed restoration effort by working in 

collaboration with private and federal entities to address sedimentation into stream and 

tributaries from road related sources on forested ground within the watershed.

FY02 Request: $121,000

3 YR Estimate: $374,000

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments:

Fundable. Adequate response; however, project needs to pay strong attention to monitoring 

the post-implementation results from the obliteration projects. Literature results from 

obliteration projects have ranged from very positive to very negative, the latter actually 

compounding the original problems of run-off and sedimentation. Thus, careful monitoring 

through this or a companion project and subsequent evaluation of results is critical. To 

assist in formulating a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are referred to 

the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic 

Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and 

Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

The proposal addresses RPAs 152 and 400. Monitoring for the proposed work will be 

performed through Project 199401805 and the LSRCP. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

119

Project ID: 27009

SSHIAP - Blue Mountain Province

Sponsor: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Subbasin: Asotin and other subbasins in the WA portion of the Blue Mountain Province.

Short Description: Project will provide routed & segmented hydrolayer, and collate and 

synthesize data on 19 aquatic habitat variables over an estimated 10,000 mi of streams in 2 

salmonid-bearing subbasins in the WA portion of this Province.

FY02 Request: $200,000

3 YR Estimate: $260,000

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The response adequately addressed the ISRP’s concerns from the preliminary 

review. This is an important program to compile stream habitat data relating to the 

salmonid resource. The proposal is thorough, clearly presented, and describes a wellestablished set of methods, referencing pertinent basic literature on the subject. The staff 

appears highly qualified for and experienced in the work involved.

To assist in formulating a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are referred 

to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic 

Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and 

Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Proposal addresses RPA 154. The reviewers question whether the 75-80% accuracy rate is 

acceptable and whether the work would be performed at the correct scale. The reviewers 

express concern that the results may be too coarse and that there should be "ground 

truthing" before implementing the proposed work. In addition, the reviewers suggest that 

other techniques (e.g., GAP analysis) provide similar data. The reviewers indicated that there 

was a lack of coordination with other managers.

Project ID: 27002

Assess Salmonids in the Asotin Creek Watershed

Sponsor: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Subbasin: Asotin

Short Description: Evaluate the current productivity and survival rates of anadromous and 

resident salmonids in Asotin Creek. Develop a habitat based spring chinook reintroduction 

plan and determine if supplementation is required to sustain a wild steelhead population.

FY02 Request: $316,885

3 YR Estimate: $775,915

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. High Priority. Adequate response. Reviewers remain concerned that sampling 

sites for fish population estimates should be much longer than 50 meters—more like 200 

meters, so that representative stream channel features, such as pools and riffles, occur within 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

120

the sample reach more frequently. This should lead to statistically more accurate sampling 

and inferences. Project sponsors need to consider winter habitat as well as other seasons. 

They should be coordinating with the monitoring plans and protocols being used in the John 

Day basin developed through the Oregon Plan. To assist in establishing a sound basinwide 

monitoring program, the proponents are referred to the programmatic section of this report 

on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic Monitoring and Evaluation, and the 

specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This proposal represents an attempt to address the concerns that the ISRP has had for the 

last 3-5 years relative to Project 199401805. Project 199401805 has provided field 

measurements of water flows and temperatures, and extensive riparian and upland 

measurements coupled with WDFW data on salmonid rearing and spawning distribution and 

abundance. With the extensive planning document and preliminary habitat improvements, 

the proposed work would build from baseline monitoring and focus on collecting data to 

address more specific concerns about naturally produced steelhead and general salmonid 

productivity in Asotin Creek. These data are key elements necessary for watershed and fish 

stock restoration planning and implementation within the subbasin. The proposed work 

provides monitoring for proposal 27014. Project addresses RPA 180.

Project ID: 27025

Acquire South Fork Asotin Creek Property

Sponsor: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

Subbasin: Asotin

Short Description: Acquire and protect the 8,500-acre Schlee property in southeastern 

Washington. This shrub-steppe habitat harbors elk and mule deer, while its streams provide 

a critical link in the Asotin Creek watershed for federally endangered anadromous fish.

FY02 Request: $3,489,500

3 YR Estimate: $3,559,500

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The proposal with the added information from the presentation justifies the 

acquisition of the properties as well chosen and a priority. This proposal is for acquisition of 

8500 acres of land, in two parcels, which will extend a current WDFW wildlife area and 

contribute to goals of maintaining (and perhaps increasing) elk populations. The initial 

budget has refreshingly little O&M, and plans for M&E are presented in detail. The cost of 

the land is reasonable and its location and type are very appropriate for the subbasin and its 

fish and wildlife goals, as well as well in line with criteria for prioritization of purchases.

To assist in establishing a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are referred 

to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic 

Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and 

Evaluation.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

121

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Proposal addresses RPA 150 and 153. The sponsor indicated that the landowner is serious 

about selling the property. In addition, there is a letter of intent and that the landowner has 

been approached by another party that has indicated that they are interested in purchasing 

the property if the RMEF purchase does not materialize. The reviewers indicated that the 

property would not be available for purchase in another three years. The RMEF is actively 

looking for matching funds to aid in purchasing the property; however, the sponsor 

indicated that the uncertainty of receiving BPA funds has limited the sponsors ability to 

secure matching funds. Although the sponsor has coordinated the efforts with the WDFW 

and has received support from local sports groups, there has been a lack of coordination 

with the NPT. The sponsor submitted an addendum to the NWPPC staff during the project 

presentation in LaGrande, OR; however, the reviewers did not have an opportunity to 

review the addendum. According to the sponsor, the addendum possessed modified M&E 

plans as well as a modified budget. Fish and wildlife populations could significantly benefit 

from the purchase and management of this property. The Wildlife Committee rated the 

project as having significant wildlife benefits using the criteria of permanence, size, 

connectivity to other habitat, and juxtaposition to public lands. There are potential benefits 

for listed steelhead. The RMEF is actively seeking to reduce the amount requested from 

BPA by pursuing landowner tax incentives, cost sharing, and/or multiyear funding of the 

property.

Snake River Hells Canyon Proposals

Project ID: 199700900

Evaluate Potential Means of Rebuilding Sturgeon Populations in the Snake River Between 

Lower Granite and Hells Canyon Dams

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Snake Hells Canyon

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.

FY02 Request: $290,510

3 YR Estimate: $1,065,510

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable - adequate response. The project is conducting good basic biological research, 

however, reviewers are concerned that current efforts need to lead to an analytic, 

quantitative assessment rather than to a qualitative assessment. The project would benefit by 

external advice on experimental design and analysis while the project is still in a formative 

stage. 

A Management Plan for Implementation will be developed by 2003. Before implementation 

of the plan, it should be reviewed by the BRT (Biological Risk Assessment Team) or another 

independent review group, if the BRT cannot provide an independent assessment. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

122

Other specific concerns are:

1. The sponsor’s response with respect to confidence intervals on marking and 

sampling was not adequate. 

2. The project team does not deal adequately with problems of aging errors and partial 

recruitment

The assessment of flow impacts on sturgeon populations is not yet well defined. 

Researchers would be relating demographic parameters to flow patterns within the Snake.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

The development of a management plan will follow the completion of field activities in 

2002. Reviewers question whether the harvest value is correct.

The RFC suggests the timeframes in out years look long. In addition, a closer working 

relationship needs to be developed with IDFG, either by including a subcontract for their 

participation in analyzing and interpreting data or by a separate contract as in proposal 

27015. The RFC expressed concerns that there may be opportunities for simultaneous work 

that are not mentioned. The harvest goal in the proposal is a NPT goal and is not shared by 

IDFG. A working group that monitors this project’s progress should be formed (IDFG, 

ODFW, NPT, IPC). Or they may be able to cooperate with the IPC WSTAC. 

The BRAT Review identified catch and release fishing in the Hells Canyon reach as one of 

the major potential limiting factors for sturgeon here. Future proposals should clarify why 

this is not being investigated. USGS has put forth proposals to investigate these fishery 

effects, and this is the reach that seems most appropriate for the investigation.

Food availability was also listed in the BRAT review as a potential limiting factor. 

Bioenergetics work to describe available resources compared to those needed for sturgeon 

production seems appropriate but is not being pursued. While comments from the ISRP are 

probably valid given they have no contact with the project proponents, the RFC has 

confidence in the described methods and analyses. The RFC indicated that progress by 

project personnel in completing reports, making population information available, etc., is 

unclear.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

123

Project ID: 27015

Develop Long-Term Management Plan for Snake River (Hells Canyon Reach) White 

Sturgeon

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation

Subbasin: Snake Hells Canyon

Short Description: The project will cooperate with the Idaho Power Company and the Nez 

Perce Tribe to develop a long-term management plan for white sturgeon in the Hells 

Canyon reach of the Snake River.

FY02 Request: $116,500

3 YR Estimate: $161,500

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Do Not Fund. A response was not warranted. The proposal, asking for support to apply a 

previously developed model and thereby assess management options for white sturgeon, is 

inadequate. Lacking are detailed description of the model, its validity, and availability of data 

needed for the model. It is not clear how the demographic data collected in NPT project 

199700900 would be incorporated into the model. The ISRP briefing did not indicate the 

simulation model involved or the capabilities of the model to assess management options. 

The proposal seems to be for one IDFG person (a full FTE) to apply this model during a 

FREC re-licensing application for the Hells Canyon reach of the Snake River; it is not 

evident why this would be a BPA/NPPC responsibility.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Because the reviewers are unfamiliar with the model and the fact that there were no 

responses to the ISRP, the reviewers question whether the model is valid/appropriate for 

the plan. This work needs to be coordinated with ODFW and the NPT. 

The RFC suggests the proposed work could complement management actions and should 

be performed jointly with Project 199700900 (potential cost savings). 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

124

Project ID: 199801003

Spawning distribution of Snake River fall chinook salmon

Sponsor: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Subbasin: Snake Hells Canyon

Short Description: Monitor the status and distribution of Snake River fall chinook salmon, 

determine if yearling-released supplemented hatchery fish spawn where intended, and gather 

information on the spawning distribution of fish released as subyearlings and natural fish.

FY02 Request: $174,162

3 YR Estimate: $435,962

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable - adequate response. The ISRP recommends that this project be terminated within 

the three-year funding duration as the project has reached its objectives. The next logical 

step would be to develop an M&E program for the naturally spawning population to 

determine whether or not it is sustainable. 

This project includes telemetric monitoring of movements of returning adult fall chinook 

from the three acclimation facilities described in 199801005 and from Lyons Ferry releases. 

The proposal and response include excellent cost sharing and presentation of some data and 

results. The proposal and presentation addressed previous comments that better description 

and interpretation of results to date was needed to support continued funding. The response 

explains the high loss of tagged fish as including elevated loss of recycled tags. Although the 

cost of tags is relatively high, the use of recycled tags seems to be a false economy as it 

significantly increases the error in the data (due to high proportion of unknown fates) and 

thus makes the data significantly less conclusive and convincing. Distinguishing whether a 

result is within acceptable bounds of a target and distinguishing between competing 

interpretations of results [or competing hypotheses] are problematic in monitoring of 

anadromous fishes. If the error could be significantly reduced to a significantly more 

discriminating level for a needed evaluation, then the use of recycled tags and higher loss of 

tracked fish would be a bad move. 

We note that the project’s “big picture goals” go well beyond what can be understood and 

reviewed from the proposal and response. It would be very useful to reviewers to have 

more concrete information on ultimate project goals that are mentioned in the response: 

success of supplementation, developing indicators for de-listing, and potential harvest 

options. Although these are ultimate goals for evaluation, neither the conceptual framework 

against which data are to be evaluated nor the formal evaluation procedures (e.g., tests and 

interpretations of possible outcomes) are presented in adequate detail for reviewers to offer 

useful comments. How data will be tested to draw conclusions as to ultimate goals is an 

important element of experimental design and needs to be better presented in this and many 

other proposals. 

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project addresses RPA 184.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

125

Project ID: 199801004

Monitor and Evaluate Yearling Snake River Fall Chinook Released Upstream Of Lower 

Granite Dam

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Snake Hells Canyon

Short Description: Monitor and evaluate survival and performance of yearling fall chinook 

from Pittsburg Landing, Big Canyon, and Captain John acclimation facilities (Project 

199801005) to maximize success of the fall chinook supplementation program above Lower 

Granite Dam.

FY02 Request: $330,241

3 YR Estimate: $1,020,741

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not Fundable. Inadequate response. Given the ISRP’s continued questions about this 

proposal, the ISRP recommends not funding this proposal again until a comprehensive 

response is provided – PI’s may need help generating that response. The ISRP clearly 

recognizes the need to continue these types of assessments but on the basis of this proposal, 

the ISRP cannot conclude that a sound scientific program is in place. This proposal 

addresses the M&E portions of the fall chinook assessments related to the acclimation 

ponds in the NPT area (Big Canyon, Captain John Rapids, Pittsburg Landing). M&E include 

inspections for fish health, tagging with PIT tags and elastomer tags, and a radio-tracking 

study to examine the emigration behavior of fall chinook smolts. 

While the authors have responded to most of the original review comments, the reviewers 

remain concerned about aspects of this proposal and its response. Nevertheless, this 

monitoring needs to continue, so further clarification is requested. 

1) The response provides a summary of data and analysis to date. It should also include a 

discussion of problems of interpretation or shortcomings apparent in the data or how they 

are being used to address ultimate goals. 

2) The response gives much useful information about the tagging procedures and purposes, 

but does not answer the question about consequences of tag loss or negative effects of 

tagging. 

3) The response does not answer all of comment 3: How does M&E address maintenance of 

genetic integrity of natural populations. What was the base level of genetic integrity defined 

and how is it now being estimated?

4) It is also not clear what is meant by the emphasis on maximizing program efficiency 

through adaptive management to achieve delisting. This use of the data should be more 

clearly described, including both rationale and procedures to be used in evaluation. What 

adaptive management plan has been developed or are the authors simply referring to “trial 

and error”?

CBFWA Project Review Comments: This project addresses RPA 184.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

126

Project ID: 199801005

Pittsburg Landing (199801005), Capt. John Rapids (199801007), Big Canyon (199801008) 

Fall Chinook Acclimation Facilities

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Snake Hells Canyon

Short Description: Supplement natural production of Snake River fall chinook above 

Lower Granite Dam through acclimation and final rearing of Lyons Ferry yearling and 

subyearlings at two sites on the Snake River and one site on the Clearwater River.

FY02 Request: $722,000

3 YR Estimate: $2,246,000

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. This is a hatchery O&M proposal, the M&E for which is in the two above 

proposals. The target population is Snake River fall chinook. The overall project has clear 

and measurable biological objectives. The goal of current operations and proposals is to test 

whether release of acclimated yearling fish reduces straying problems and increases 

successful return of spawning fish to specific streams and reaches. Both yearling vs 

subyearling and acclimation (vs direct releases at Lyons Ferry) effects are of interest. Those 

two M&E proposals reported appropriate results indicating that M&E is underway. Results 

to date do not suggest a need for radical or short-term rethinking of operations. The 

program should continue efforts to disseminate results in the form of peer-reviewed 

publications. Overall Lower Snake program concerns remain, but data are being gathered to 

address questions of program success. Complete returns for all three acclimation facilities 

will occur in 2002, at which time results should be thoroughly examined and reported and 

evaluated.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Monitoring is performed through Project 199801003 and 199801004. This project is 

considered BASE by NMFS.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

127

Project ID: 27016

Evaluate the effects of hyporheic discharge on egg pocket water temperature in Snake River 

fall chinook salmon spawning areas

Sponsor: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Subbasin: Snake Hells Canyon

Short Description: Evaluate the relationships among river discharge, hyporheic zone 

characteristics, and egg pocket water temperature in Snake River fall chinook salmon 

spawning areas; evaluate the potential for improving Snake River fall chinook salmon smolt 

survival

FY02 Request: $154,136

3 YR Estimate: $691,776

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (High Priority)

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable at High Priority

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. Responses to ISRP questions were reasonable. This is an innovative and high 

priority proposal. Summer flow augmentation to benefit downstream migrating fall chinook 

has been a contentious issue within the basin. The investigators hypothesize that extending 

the period of stable flows below the Hell’s Canyon complex well into the egg incubation 

period could provide more favorable conditions for incubation and decrease the time 

required for the eggs to hatch. Earlier emergence would make it possible for juvenile fall 

chinook to migrate downstream sooner than they currently do and thus enter the Snake 

River reservoirs earlier in the summer, when water temperatures and stream flows are more 

beneficial for survival. This change in migration timing could reduce the need for summer 

flow augmentation. A clear and reasonable line of logic backs the proposal. The investigators 

are exceptionally well qualified to conduct this work. 

Idaho Power is supportive, but apparently is unwilling to commit further at this point. This 

is understandable and should not preclude funding for the project.

Reviewers suggest that the project be funded for a finite term within the three-year funding 

duration and that project results be analyzed and presented in that time frame. The final 

report should include recommendations for flow management, and monitoring and 

evaluation of benefits.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

The overall objective of this project is to evaluate the potential for improving juvenile Snake 

River fall chinook salmon survival by modifying the discharge operations of Hells Canyon 

Dam. The potential for improved survival would be gained by increasing the rate at which 

early life history events proceed (i.e., incubation and emergence), thereby allowing smolts to 

migrate through downstream reservoirs during early- to mid-summer when river conditions 

are more favorable for survival. This proposal is in response to an ISAB report in which 

they asked for alternatives that could be affecting migration timing. Reviewers expressed 

concern about the potential benefits from this project because realized benefits will be 

dependent on Idaho Power (would assist in the funding of this proposed work) agreement 

to adjust the flows. The reviewers acknowledge that the proposal is well written by a 

respected researcher; however, the proposal may be more suitable for consideration through 

the Innovative Project process. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

128

Project ID: 27010

Snake River Hells Canyon Tributary Enhancements

Sponsor: Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Subbasin: Snake Hells Canyon

Short Description: Protect and enhance important aquatic and terrestrial habitats in Snake 

River tributaries in the Idaho portion of the Snake Hells Canyon subbasin.

FY02 Request: $101,000

3 YR Estimate: $2,048,000

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable; inadequate submittal. Little specific justification of the benefits the projects 

was provided for Snake River salmon restoration. Were these areas historically significant 

production areas? How much would the restoration efforts in these areas increase overall 

Snake River production? Details for accomplishing the objectives are insufficient for judging 

the soundness or potential benefits of the project.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project addresses 400. Reviewers indicate that there are watershed assessments 

completed for some of the areas. Although an objective/strategy exists for FY02, there is a 

lack of specific details regarding implementation. In addition, the objectives are not clearly 

stated for the out-years. The reviewers note that the proposal was insufficient, but believe 

the concept is a recommended action.

Imnaha

Project ID: 199701501

Imnaha Smolt Survival and Smolt to Adult Return Rate Quantification

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management

Subbasin: Imnaha

Short Description: Quantify juvenile emigrant abundance, determine smolt survival from 

the Imnaha River to Lower Granite and McNary dams, quantify smolt-to-adult return rate 

(SAR) of wild/natural chinook salmon at Lower Granite Dam and back to the Imnaha River

FY02 Request: $466,802

3 YR Estimate: $2,334,258

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The response to ISRP questions was adequate. This project proposes to estimate 

survival and arrival times to Lower Snake River dams from near the mouth of the Imnaha. It 

includes year-round monitoring of fish, with associated construction of a permanent 

emigrant trap. The project includes a large increase in scope and budget (almost doubled). 

This is an excellent proposal with strong historical perspective, some data presentation, good 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

129

rationale explained in section 9c, and timely data management, reporting and availability 

(both published and integration with FPC). 

The authors responded to each of the ISRP’s questions but the ISRP has a few comments 

for future consideration. The ISRP continues to be uncertain about the likelihood of tagging 

20,000 chinook smolts but the response identifies that the impact of not achieving this goal 

would likely be reduced precision. Further, the tagging goal was set based on a very low 

average SAR (0.15%) and may be inflated by that value. However, the ISRP agrees with the 

author’s suggestion to solicit statistical advice on the number of smolts to tag in order to 

minimize impacts on the fish and to provide realistic program objectives. Secondly, the 

response provided values for trap efficiency but not methods. These methods must be more 

carefully described and data provided given the importance of this parameter to the 

program’s methods. Given the time between provincial reviews, it would be advisable for 

the authors’ to document these methods, summarize the data, and seek peer review of these 

methods.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project addresses RPA 184, 185 and 189. 

Project ID: 27021

Adult Steelhead Status Monitoring - Imnaha River Subbasin

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Imnaha

Short Description: Quantify adult steelhead abundance, population growth rate, spatial 

distribution, and genetic stock structure in all tributaries of the Imnaha River subbasin 

through the operation of adult spawner escapement monitoring facilities

FY02 Request: $1,055,449

3 YR Estimate: $2,564,551

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (high priority) 

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable 

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The authors provided adequate responses to each question and this work is of 

high priority. This is a good proposal, well justified, and provides good supporting 

background. The investigators propose to install weirs to quantify adult abundance of adult 

steelhead, obtain demographic data, and collect tissues to analyze genetic stock structure of 

steelhead in Imnaha River tributaries. The work is an important component of steelhead 

population monitoring. 

However, we remain unconvinced about the sampling design, especially the weiring of all 

streams. Given the high temporal variability in anadromous fish populations, the argument 

that very intensive short-term monitoring can provide the best data seems questionable. A 

random sample of streams maybe a preferable design and would be less reliant on fixed weir 

structures. Even from the authors’ response, we suggest that the critical parameter to 

estimate is the portion of radio-tags entering the streams that are to be enumerated. An 

unbiased estimate of Pd will provide an accurate estimate of the total aggregate escapement 

even if a small sample of the streams were enumerated. This is an innovative approach to 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

130

estimating steelhead spawning escapements, but we need to consider the most cost efficient 

means to conduct this annual program. 

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project addresses RPA 179 and 180. This proposal addresses a need for improved adult 

escapement; however, the reviewers suggest the level of detail that is provided may exceed 

what is necessary for making critical management decisions and deterring 

population/recovery status. The reviewers suggest the work could be "scaled back" yet still 

provide adequate population data. Although the sponsors suggested the work will provide 

information where data gaps (especially as related to 174 and 184) exist, the reviewers 

suggested an urgent issue would not be addressed. The proposed work would provide more 

accuracy to the current approach and provide information for recovery efforts. 

Grande Ronde

Project ID: 199608000

NE Oregon Wildlife Mitigation Project -- "Precious Lands"

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Continue operation of the NE Oregon Wildlife Mitigation Project --

"Precious Lands" to protect, restore, and enhance canyon grassland habitats and associated 

riparian and forest communities to benefit fish and wildlife.

FY02 Request: $439,803

3 YR Estimate: $1,279,903

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable in part; inadequate response. The response lacked specific answers to many review 

questions and also provided some answers that fail to address the question asked. The 

project is fundable for one year only, to develop a management and M&E plan, which 

should be provided for independent scientific evaluation. Continued funding should be 

contingent on positive scientific review of those plans, which should clearly describe the 

work to be done for the rest of the funding period, complete with biological objectives, 

rationale, and methods. 

This project should not receive long-term funding without a management plan that includes 

clear objectives and M&E. The response does not provide critical information for scientific 

review. Reviewers have previously noted that the project should provide a management plan 

that states targets, provides rationale for actions to meet these targets, and provides for 

evaluation of actions. This plan still has not been provided, the response clarifies that it is in 

only an early stage of development, and its absence generates many problems for evaluating 

the scientific soundness of the proposed management expenditures. The response clarifies 

why a management plan has been viewed as a low priority to date, but that does not solve 

the current problem of scientific evaluation of the proposal, which requires more substantial 

presentation of goals and methods of management and evaluation of outcomes. The project 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

131

has many strong points, but the management and evaluation plans should be subject to 

independent scientific review. 

Further, the description of monitoring is sketchy. Management actions are still being 

confused with management objectives (e.g. question 2 response). Specific answers are 

lacking to questions about how long term management objectives will be developed, whether 

in fact fish objectives will be added to the plan, which cultural components will be 

monitored, whether monitoring will be made consistent with the NRCS National Resource 

Inventory. Responses rely on “to be developed”, “could be added”, “efforts will be made”, 

rather than providing specific answers to reviewer questions. The response continues to 

miss the point that long-term objectives are needed before monitoring takes place, so that 

progress toward achieving objectives can be monitored, rather than just monitoring 

activities. 

To assist in establishing a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are referred 

to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring and the specific comments on 

Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.

The response also leaves several budgetary matters unexplained. The response does not 

provide justification for a full time manager, just explains that it is the lead project biologist. 

The response regarding expenditures on the NPT offices does not address the indirect cost 

question explicitly. The question is whether these expenditures are a normal component of 

indirect costs or whether a separate line is justified. These are BPA contracting matters.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Proposal addresses RPA 150 and 153. The Wildlife Committee rated the project as having 

significant wildlife benefits using the criteria of permanence, size, connectivity to other 

habitat, and juxtaposition to public lands. Expansion of this project has been submitted 

under Project Number 27023. 

Project ID: 27023

Precious Lands Wildlife Habitat Expansion

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Expand the operation of the NE Oregon Wildlife Mitigation Project --

"Precious Lands" to protect, restore, and enhance up to 16,500 acres of additional grassland, 

riparian and ponderosa pine habitat to benefit fish and wildlife.

FY02 Request: $3,373,974

3 YR Estimate: $10,151,474

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The acquisition activities are well justified. A response is not needed. The 

procedures and priorities for land purchase are well justified, as is the choice of canyon 

grassland as target habitat to acquire. Longer-term funding for management should follow 

provision of reviewed and approved management plan that includes M&E. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

132

This is the acquisition component of the wildlife proposal above. It is for funding to double 

the area for wildlife habitat. The target habitat is canyon grassland and the area targeted for 

acquisition encompasses all the quality canyon grassland habitat in the Blue Mt province. 

The process of prioritizing potential purchase parcels was not described in the proposal but 

was described in the presentation. It would consist of an identification of available parcels, 

an evaluation of habitat values (riparian, wetlands, 303d listed streams, number of listed 

species present, ponderosa pine communities and canyon grasslands preferred), ecological 

condition and restorability, consideration of the size of the parcel, and assessment of the 

relationship to other conservation areas, economic value. A third-party appraisal would be 

conducted. The Council’s program includes a Land and Water Acquisition, how would this 

project fit in? 

The project proposes over the long run to improve land use practices, restore degraded 

communities, protect and enhance habitat values, monitor and evaluate management 

practices, and provide habitat quality for wildlife. As with the proposal above, these longerterm management goals and actions are not yet well justified in terms of science, as concrete 

and detailed management plans and objectives are yet to be completed. According to the 

presentation, a management plan would specify the desired outcomes and include 

measurable objectives for species composition. How will these objectives be derived? Some 

economic uses of this land may be allowed, but no specifics were given. These should be 

included in the management plan and the management plan should itself be subject to 

outside scientific review.

To assist in establishing a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are referred 

to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring and the specific comments on 

Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Proposal addresses RPA 150 and 153. Reviewers believe the acquisition of parcels and the 

development of assessments will likely take at least one year and thus question whether 

implementation could be initiated during the first year. Although there are no cost-shares 

identified in the proposal, the sponsors indicate that they are working with TPL to develop 

cost-shares. Not all parcels that should/could be purchased have been identified. The 

Wildlife Committee rated the project as having significant wildlife benefits using the criteria 

of permanence, size, connectivity to other habitat, and juxtaposition to public lands. This 

project is an expansion of Project Number 199608000. If funded, the additional objectives 

presented in this proposal would likely be brought under the existing project.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

133

Project ID: 200002100

Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon, Ladd Marsh WMA Additions

Sponsor: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Protect and restore wetland and riparian habitats on parcels acquired 

and added to the Ladd Marsh Wildlife Area.

FY02 Request: $193,185

3 YR Estimate: $658,685

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable for 1 year to develop a long-term management plan, after which the management 

plan should be submitted for review and subsequent funding should be contingent on that 

plan being found to be scientifically sound.

The proposed purchases are justified to extend the wetland, and the property is of high 

priority to migrating waterfowl. The project is clearly significant to regional programs, and 

well tied in with other projects. An extensive project history is provided that illustrates the 

collaboration among various entities to acquire contiguous lands and restore them as 

wetlands. This project is clearly tied to wildlife mitigation goals and to limiting water quality 

and quantity factors in the Grande Ronde Subbasin. The technical background of the 

proposal gives a good justification of the value of the restoring more of the historic 

wetlands, which once exceeded 20,000 acres as Tule Lake. Ladd Marsh has been identified as 

a priority restoration site by many different planning efforts. 

However, the proposal and response still fail to address the previously noted scientific 

deficiency that the management plan, including the M&E component, needs to be better 

described. This project should not receive long-term funding without a management plan 

that includes clear objectives and M&E. The response addresses many review comments, 

and a good description of the general components of the M&E plan that will be developed is 

provided in the response. The response to the recommendation to make terrestrial 

monitoring efforts compatible with national surveys conveys openness to this approach and 

a willingness to develop it as part of the M&E plan.

To assist in establishing a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are referred 

to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring and the specific comments on 

Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Although a large amount of wetland habitat has been lost in this area, the reviewers are 

unsure whether the proposed work is urgent. The Wildlife Committee rated the project as 

having significant wildlife benefits using the criteria of permanence, size, connectivity to 

other habitat, and juxtaposition to public lands. ODFW will gain support from appropriate 

co-managers (Tribes and States) for proposed use of Lower Snake River dam wildlife losses 

to support Ladd Marsh Project prior to NWPPC funding decisions in January.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

134

Project ID: 27020

Grande Ronde Subbasin Water Right Acquisition Program

Sponsor: Oregon Water Trust

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Acquire 3 cfs of existing Grande Ronde Subbasin water rights on a 

voluntary basis and transfer to instream water rights under Oregon state law; target 

acquisitions to maximize fulfillment of habitat objectives for instream flows.

FY02 Request: $62,620

3 YR Estimate: $205,322

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments:

Fundable. The response addresses the review comments with sufficient detail. Attention has 

also been paid to answering the intent of the comments. Descriptions of the methods used 

to value both temporary water leases and permanent water right acquisition are sufficient. 

The approach is reasonable. The response provides adequate detail on how impacts of water 

acquisition are monitored in partnership with ODFW and CTUIR. The response to 

questions about the ecological benefits of water acquisition provides a justification for the 

incremental approach and an explanation of how this approach is taken in conjunction with 

ecological planning and monitoring. Additional detail is provided on the crop enterprise 

budget used to value temporary water leases, monitoring approaches to in-stream flow, and 

monitoring strategies for measurable in-stream water rights. This level of explanatory detail 

should be included in future OWT proposals for acquisition of in-stream water rights. 

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project addresses RPA 150. The sponsor suggests that 3 cfs would be secured through

the work. The reviewers indicate that the 3 cfs is significant if it occurs in a small to 

moderate-sized stream; however, 3 cfs is not a critical limiting factor throughout most of the 

subbasin. NMFS needs to assess biological impact on fish (see ISRP responses).

Project ID: 198402500 

Grande Ronde Basin Fish Habitat Enhancement Project

Sponsor: ODFW

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Protect and enhance fish habitat in selected streams on private lands in 

the Grande Ronde Basin to improve instream and riparian habitat diversity, and increase 

natural production of wild salmonids.

FY02 Request: $456,416

3 YR Estimate: $1,438,850

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The response is adequate. This proposal is to continue work on a 15 year-old 

project that includes 40 individual habitat enhancement projects. The technical background 

provided in the proposal is again excellent, providing good explanation of the problems and 

the choice of approaches to address those problems. The project has strong ties with other 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

135

projects. The project history is thorough and includes summaries of monitoring results. 

In response to earlier ISRP comments, more detail on the monitoring data is provided and 

some evaluation of results is also presented, although the examples are limited by the data 

presented (i.e., max and min values). The ISRP was encouraged by the response and 

supports the effort to analyze existing data in this long-running project. As noted by the P.I., 

much more data have been collected than have been analyzed. The frustration of trying to 

balance landowner cooperation and implementation with the collection of monitoring data 

and evaluation of monitoring results is evident. 

The P.I. proposes to do some internal reallocation of funds to support a contract for analysis 

of monitoring data. The ISRP recommends additional funding support for up to two years 

to hire a data analyst with strong quantitative skills dedicated fulltime to the analysis of the 

past 15 years’ monitoring data. The analyst should produce a database on historical 

information and a report on the adequacy of the existing data. The results of this analysis 

should be clearly and comprehensively presented in the next proposal. 

The evaluation need, however, is not limited to the analysis of the large amounts of data that 

are being collected and stockpiled. It also includes using the results of these analyses in an 

annual evaluation of progress toward meeting project goals. It is still not clear why 

summaries of progress are not routinely prepared using an index approach.

To assist in formulating a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are referred 

to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic 

Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and 

Evaluation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Project may address RPA 153 and 400. The reviewers questioned the lack of data analysis. 

The sponsors indicated they have only had time/funding to collect, error check and store the 

majority of the data. Statements of Work and Budgets dating back to the early 1990’s 

routinely included statements such as “These (M&E) tasks will be accomplished only if 

adequate time and funds are provided by BPA.” Additional correspondence over the years 

with BPA contracting officers clearly indicated that monitoring and evaluation were a distant 

third in priority behind O&M and Implementation. The sponsors indicated that a more 

thorough, and preferably independent evaluation of the program is worthwhile; however, 

Oregon State law prevents the sponsors from making requests for new funds, or increasing 

existing program funds without legislative approval. As a result, the sponsors have proposed 

to reallocate personnel funds in the proposed 2002 budget by shifting funds that would 

normally be dedicated to administrative activities such as program supervision and clerical 

assistance to allow for the development of a contract to compile, review, analyze and publish 

the results of their habitat restoration efforts. The sponsors have initiated efforts to identify 

an individual to perform the analysis. Reviewers indicated that in FY2000 project sponsors 

agreed that any new work would go through the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program 

rather than directly through BPA. There would be potential cost savings if implementation 

activities were processed through the GRMWP.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

136

Project ID: 199202601

Implement the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program Administration and Habitat 

Restoration Projects

Sponsor: Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Continue the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program Administration 

and Habitat Restoration. Develop and oversee coordinated, sustainable resource 

management in the Grande Ronde Subbasin. Plan, design and implement salmonid habitat 

restoration projects.

FY02 Request: $1,376,000

3 YR Estimate: $5,088,000

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The response is adequate. Monitoring is built into the 20-30 individual projects 

funded under the GRMWP, in terms of documenting actions taken and qualitative change in 

habitat (through photopoints). The cumulative basinwide effect of projects is not monitored. 

Several comments in the response indicate that basin-scale monitoring is difficult because of 

the relatively small proportion of the basin comprised by projects under the GRMWP, and 

that it is difficult to relate changes in species production directly to changes in habitat 

resulting from projects. Despite these comments, the GRMWP contracted a review of 

monitoring and are implementing some of its recommendations. A monitoring coordinator 

is being hired and a basin-wide monitoring plan is planned through the use of “indicator 

watersheds.”

Methods are now provided for habitat restoration objectives. The project solicitation and 

review process is now described in adequate detail. Target funding areas are based on 

watershed and habitat assessments. Projects are targeted at specific areas and are also the 

result of opportunities that arise to work with landowners. Details on the project review 

process, review criteria, and the technical review committee are also provided. The process 

as described is appropriate for critical review. 

In future, the level of detail provided in this response should be provided in the proposal. 

The ISRP looks forward to evaluative information from the basin-wide monitoring plan in 

the FY03 proposal.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

In an attempt to show that the money spent on habitat work has led to a positive fish 

population response, monitoring of fish population status/response is performed through 

199202604. This project addresses RPA 400.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

137

1. Project ID: 199403900

Watershed Restoration Planner

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Act as the liaison between the Nez Perce Tribe and Wallowa County. 

Help coordinate watershed restoration efforts in Wallowa County between the Tribe, 

County, Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program, local landowners, and state and federal 

agencies.

FY02 Request: $64,289

3 YR Estimate : $202,670

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. The response is inadequate. This proposal requests continuing funding for a 

liaison to function as a planner and coordinator for the NPT’s involvement in the Wallowa 

County and Grande Ronde Watershed plans. In response to the request for more detail for 

scientific review, the responders return responsibility to the ISRP to provide suggestions 

about the information they should present. ISRP comments list several items of necessary 

information, including a plan for targeted improvements, strategies for prioritizing and 

implementing improvements, and some evaluative outcome assessment. The response 

provides justification as to why this position is not amenable to scientific review. However, 

the FWP seeks work that is scientifically sound and is subject to scientific review. 

The response lists a number of documents that will be used to prioritize projects, but what is 

lacking is an integrated plan for the watershed coordinator. The need for such a plan, and 

the assistance provided to the watershed coordinator of having such a plan, are illustrated by 

the comments made about a watershed coordinator’s time not being his own, and having to 

be available on request. Some way to prioritize these requests is needed, and a plan is one 

tool. The need for evaluative assessment is similar – with so many small individual activities 

in place, the coordinator should track whether overall, these activities are making a 

difference, or whether efforts are being fragmented to such a degree that the benefits are 

dissipated. The project proponent makes clear that he finds no need for monitoring or 

evaluation.

The explanation provided for why a hatchery objective is included in this proposal is that a 

person employed on 199403900 was an author of a habitat section of the NEOHP Spring 

Chinook Master Plan and will provide technical help to this plan. This objective is more 

appropriately placed in the NEOHP project, with budget amounts sufficient to pay for these 

services.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project addresses RPA 152. Although M&E does not exist in this proposal, M&E 

activities are performed through individual projects. Reviewers suggest that this project 

could possibly be combined with 199202601.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

138

2. Project ID: 199702500 

Implement The Wallowa County/Nez Perce Tribe Salmon Habitat Recovery Plan

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Maintenance and/or restoration of salmon habitat through cooperative 

and voluntary methods is a stated goal in the Wallowa County/Nez Perce Tribe Salmon 

Habitat Recovery Plan. Funding of this project will help to implement the Plan.

FY02 Request: $45,675

3 YR Estimate: $132,025

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. The response is inadequate. The response is fairly uniformly negative to 

ISRP review comments. In response to the review comment that the proposal should 

provide information about the past year’s allocation of funds and the level of cost share 

received in each project, the response indicates only that there is no place on the BPA form 

to provide the requested cost-share information. This information could logically be 

included in the narrative portion of the proposal that discusses the cost-share approach, in a 

summary table. 

Preliminary review comments indicated that there are monitoring opportunities in small 

projects to provide useful information. The response is negative about providing any level 

of monitoring except for monitoring expected outcomes of each project. Additional 

monitoring is seen as an unnecessary expense. 

Proponents indicated that in 2001 the project will put more emphasis on selected 

watersheds, provide up-front money for project development, to install stream gages, and to 

continue to find small projects that fall outside the normal funding cycle. Reviewers noted 

that although the project may provide effective funding leverage for small projects, the 

response should develop technical justification for the methods used, better describe how 

projects are prioritized and selected, and develop a better comprehensive evaluation 

procedure. This information is not provided. 

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project addresses RPA 400. The NMFS expressed concern about the lack of biological 

monitoring activities to address fish population responses to habitat activities. Although 

there is a desire to have biological, fish related, monitoring variables to measure the impact 

of habitat improvements, it is very difficult to develop a statistical based sampling design that 

is able to accomplish that.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

139

Project ID: 199608300

CTUIR Grande Ronde Subbasin Restoration

Sponsor: Confederated Tribes Umatilla Indian Reservation

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Protect, enhance, and restore riparian, floodplain, and instream habitat 

to benefit anadromous fish.

FY02 Request: $200,000

3 YR Estimate: $585,000

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. A response was not needed. This project to restore McCoy meadow and relocate 

the creek from a straight ditch into a former natural, meandering course began in 1996. 

Passive restoration is emphasized. The proposal is thorough, detailed, and clearly written. It 

contains excellent scientific/technical background and excellent project history. 

The project area lies in the ceded territory of CTUIR. The CTUIR is a participant in the 

GRMWP. Besides channel relocation, activities include placing large woody debris, planting 

riparian vegetation, and replacing culverts (in at least one place with a bridge). Projects with 

landowners are trying to focus on key life history areas for fish such as over-wintering 

rearing habitat and spawning areas. Data on water temperature and fish populations are 

presented.

The descriptions of tasks and of methods used to achieve the objectives are a bit general and 

could have more information on how specifically the objectives will be met, and how success 

or failure to meet them will be assessed. A description of the type of monitoring and 

evaluation that is done, and of results to date is presented, but the relative progress toward 

achieving the biological objectives is not described.

Overall, this is a strong proposal with competent staff. 

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project addresses RPA 150 and 400. In the past, M&E activities have focused on 

aquatic parameters. Sponsors indicated that they have coordinated with OSU to perform 

terrestrial M&E activities. Reviewers indicated that in FY2000 project sponsors agreed to 

that any new work would go through the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program rather 

than directly through BPA. Potential cost savings if implementation activities are processed 

through the GRMWP.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

140

Project ID: 27012

Restore and Enhance Grande Ronde Valley Deciduous Riparian Habitat

Sponsor: Oregon Department Fish and Wildlife

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Protect, restore and enhance deciduous riparian habitat adjacent to the 

Grande Ronde River and its tributaries in the Grande Ronde Valley

FY02 Request: $156,000

3 YR Estimate: $551,000

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not Fundable. A timely response was not provided and concerns with objectives and 

methods remain. This is a proposal to establish cooperative arrangements with Grande 

Ronde riparian owners to set up long-term easements for protection and enhancement of 

riparian habitat. Habitat emphasis is on birds and juvenile Chinook and steelhead.

The technical background is excellent, providing detail on context for this project, and 

putting the problem of riparian habitat protection in perspective. It discusses riparian 

mitigation priorities in the context of several subbasin planning and watershed assessment 

documents. The rationale for the project is embedded in this technical background section. 

The proposal provides a long list of projects to which it would be related. 

Despite this good beginning, the proposal gets a little vague starting with the goals and 

objectives. The proposal lists general goals that the project will help achieve: are these taken 

directly from the Grande Ronde Subbasin summary or are these goals specific to this 

project? Below the list of goals, the proposal contains lists of actions to be taken under 

various categories: again, are these tasks for this project or actions listed in the Subbasin 

Summary? 

Objectives and tasks are listed, but without any detail. There is no explanation of methods, 

e.g., as to how habitat will be restored once easements are signed, or what information will 

be acquired to provide the NEPA analysis. No explanation of methods for weed control, 

buffer management, bird surveys, stock assessment are given beyond “write the subcontract” 

to have the activity performed. With regard to M&E, the methods for Task 1a and for 

Objectives 2 and 3 are missing.

The idea of reconnecting old river oxbows is particularly laudable from the standpoint of 

regaining fish and wildlife habitat. However, arrangements with landowners for this could be 

very difficult, and the physical work could be complicated. What method(s) will be used to 

relocate the channel?

There appear to be good working relationships with landowners in the valley.

To assist in formulating a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are referred 

to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring and the specific comments on 

Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

141

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project addresses RPAs 150 and 400. Reviewers questioned why the proposed work 

was not added to Project 198402500. By combining the proposed work with Project 

198402500, a potential cost savings could be realized. The reviewers suggest that the 

proposal does not illustrate coordination with other entities and other on-going work. In 

addition, NMFS questions how the restoration efforts will affect the status of fish 

populations. The reviewers suggest the sponsors consider alternative funding options (e.g., 

OWEB and the Grand Ronde Model Watershed Program). The Wildlife Committee rated 

the project as having significant wildlife benefits using the criteria of permanence, size, 

connectivity to other habitat, and juxtaposition to public lands.

Project ID: 27013

Grande Ronde River Stream Restoration - La Grande, Oregon

Sponsor: Union County and Union Soil and Water Conservation District

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Improve fish passage and habitat through the replacement of the 

headgate structure, establish rock cross vane structures, rock weirs, fill and stabilize scour 

pool improving habitat, stream bank stabilization and large woody debris placement.

FY02 Request: $816,080

3 YR Estimate: $841,080

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not Fundable. The proposed project would artificially harden a river reach that the Corps of 

Engineers straightened in 1959 on the outskirts of the town of La Grande. The basic 

purpose is to forestall channel headcutting that threatens to undermine a bridge and 

irrigation ditch. The proposed measures to accommodate fish and wildlife aspects are 

secondary, are minimal compared with what could be done (perhaps at greater expense), and 

include little or no benefit to fish and wildlife beyond what will have to be done to comply 

with the ESA anyway, when work is done to protect the bridge. If the bridge and ditch are to 

be protected (the necessity of which the reviewers do not question), the project must, quite 

understandably, lock the channel into a “stable” shape, but this will prevent river processes 

forming and reforming fish habitat as would be natural, so the project cannot be construed 

as a net-benefit fish habitat measure. The proposal remains poorly substantiated with regard 

to fishery aspects. The requested $841,000 can be better spent on projects of more benefit to 

fish and wildlife. Overall, the responses fail to alleviate the review concern that the focus of 

the project is not fish benefits and that the cause of fish habitat problems, the channel 

straightening, would be perpetuated by this project.

The CBFWA comments in general complement the ISRP concerns and opinion. The ISRP 

reviewers note in particular the CBFW comments that the project “is not designed as a fish 

and wildlife project, would not remedy the problems of the cause” and that “The trajectory 

of the fish population would not benefit from the project.”

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

The proposed work will allow for the stabilization of a streambed that will subsequently 

prevent a bridge from collapsing. The reviewers expressed a concern that there was no 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

142

mention of arrangements with the landowners to allow for continued protection. The 

managers suggest the proposed work, which is not designed as a fish and wildlife project, 

would not remedy the problems of the cause. The trajectory of the fish population would 

not benefit from the project. This project addresses RPAs 400 and 500.

Project ID: 27008

Grande Ronde River Riparian Restoration

Sponsor: Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Vale District Office, 

Baker Field Office

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Enhance and restore riparian and native vegetation along the Wallowa 

and Grande Ronde Rivers to reduce sedimentation and improve riparian and instream 

habitat. Map of general project area is included under the narrative.

FY02 Request: $307,730

3 YR Estimate: $768,020

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable (Low Priority)

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable (Low Priority)

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable, but low priority. This proposal is to perform riparian restoration on land 

acquired by the BLM in 1993. The BLM wants to control noxious weeds, establish native 

species, fence riparian areas, and continue maintenance of existing exclosures on this land. 

Both the Grande Ronde and Wallowa Rivers are on the 303d list for various factors. 

However, the land being considered for restoration does not appear to be in need of 

immediate active remedial action so this work cannot be viewed as of high priority. The land 

has been secured protection from active degradation. Nothing in the proposal, response, or 

presentation convinced the ISRP that the land was in need of immediate active restoration. 

Further, the response states that M&E plans will be set up in FY 2002, so the work currently 

lacks the required M&E component. The response suggests that the proponents anticipate 

success of their methods so plan primarily to document that success. The response 

emphasizes that proactive attention to small degraded areas will produce larger benefits 

overall by preventing further degradation. However, it does not convince reviewers that 

riparian degradation will necessarily increase on land for which harmful practices have 

ceased. 

Regarding the question of why this project is a BPA, rather than BLM, responsibility, the 

justification is offered that acquired land only augments existing land managed by BLM for 

some time. No detail on the proportions of these two types of land is given; however, the 

larger point remains that BLM is in the position of looking for soft money to perform 

restoration activities for riparian damage incurred under their management. Is the 

implication of this situation that there would be no assurance of continuity in BLM riparian 

restoration without continuing FWP funding?

To assist in formulating a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are referred 

to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring and the specific comments on 

Terrestrial Monitoring and Evaluation.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

143

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Although an M&E plan was absent from the proposal, the sponsor indicated that efforts 

would be undertaken to develop such a plan following the completion of NEPA activities. 

Reviewers suggest the work, which will occur entirely on BLM property, would not provide 

benefits in the mainstem; however, significant results could be realized in Courtney Creek. 

Reviewers suggest that this work could be implemented/coordinated through Project 

199202601. The NMFS indicated that they would like to see an attempt to evaluate the 

effectiveness of these activities relative to the abundance/status of fish populations. This 

project may address RPA 400.

Project ID: 27011

Lookingglass Creek land purchase for watershed protection (spawning and rearing habitat 

continuity and water quality at Lookingglass Hatchery).

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Sponsor: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Short Description: Protect 2.5 miles of stream and riparian areas in Lookingglass Creek to 

improve water quality and provide continuity of spawning and rearing areas for spring 

chinook, summer steelhead, and bulltrout.

FY02 Request: $2,263,400

3 YR Estimate: $2,274,400

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. The response was inadequate. A specific plan for future land uses was not 

presented and was judged to be a critical omission from the proposal and response. 

This proposal is to purchase an identified parcel of land along Lookingglass Creek for the 

purpose of riparian protection. The relationship of this project to other projects comes 

primarily through the issue of water supply to the Lookingglass Hatchery. The Lookingglass 

Creek purchase is justified in terms of value to Lookingglass Hatchery, and it could very well 

lead to benefit to fish and wildlife. Further, the area to be acquired is in good condition and 

should require little if any active restoration. The response adds detail to the basic fish and 

wildlife value of the property, which apparently includes good quality and relatively limited 

habitats. The major weakness in the proposal remains the lack of a specific plan for use of 

the expensive property after purchase. The possibility of reselling after easements are in 

place is mentioned in the response. However, the response does not explain the restoration 

plans for fish above the hatchery and so does not justify the value of the property acquisition 

that is proposed. There are no solid plans for resolving the conflict the project proponents 

see between water supply to the hatchery and availability of the above-hatchery habitat they 

propose to acquire to fish. The methods remain very sketchy and are not adequate for 

review of scientific soundness. It is not adequate to simply state that EMAP or NRI 

sampling will be used. The specific sample areas, methods, and sampling frequency and 

intensity (i.e., how many samples of what type where and when) need to be specified. The 

biological objectives are vague and it is not clear how they would be addressed and 

evaluated. There is no management plan. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

144

Responses are vague as to how the overall management goal – the “desired future 

condition” – will be determined, and how management alternatives to reach this goal will be 

identified.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project is consistent with RPAs 150 and 400. This proposal will allow for the 

protection and enhancement of property that is contributing sediment to the system which is 

inhabited by bull trout, steelhead and chinook. Based on their experience with the land 

owner, the sponsors indicate that if the property is not purchased by a fish and wildlife 

manager the property will be available for purchase by others. The existing conditions have 

resulted in a 303d listing. The reviewers expressed concern because sponsors did not 

indicate intentions relative to habitat rehabilitation and that there has been a lack of 

coordination with local managers. The Wildlife Committee rated the project as having 

significant wildlife benefits using the criteria of permanence, size, connectivity to other 

habitat, and juxtaposition to public lands.

Project ID: 27005

Increase CREP Enrollment and Enhance Riparian Protections in the Grande Ronde and 

Imnaha basins

Sponsor: Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board

Subbasin: Grande Ronde and Imnaha

Short Description: This project will increase enrollment in the CREP program and improve 

the program to add permanent protection to the restored riparian areas.

FY02 Request: $170,880

3 YR Estimate: $521,720

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Do Not Fund

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Not fundable. A timely response was not provided to address the ISRP concerns. This 

proposal is brief and provides too little detail to evaluate the need, the relationship to the 

FWP, or the methods. The presentation was helpful in expanding on the basic idea and 

proposed actions, but a response must provide more detail. For example, the abstract is a 

single sentence. The rationale to the FWP is not well developed; the proposal describes 

some of the program environment but does not provide rationale for the proposed work. 

Three objectives are provided, with very short descriptions of methods under each. Under 

the 1st objective to “develop a permanent protection mechanism”, it states that OWEB 

needs to develop an economic methodology for acquiring permanent easements, but does 

not say what that methodology would look like or how it would be developed. The proposal 

adds staff to 2 county SWCDs in order to increase enrollment through the provision of 

technical assistance. The PIs did not provide adequate detail on methods of implementation.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Proposed work would address RPA 153 if it involves CREP. Although the proposal 

presented a potentially good concept, the proposal was not developed well enough to assess 

the technical and management merits. The reviewers suggest the project needs to be 

implemented consistent with limiting factors and problem locations identified in subbasin 

summaries and eventually subbasin planning to ensure fisheries benefits to target species. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

145

Project ID: 27004

Grande Ronde and Imnaha Stream Channel Complexity and Fish Passage Barrier Inventory, 

Prioritization and Remediation

Sponsor: Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board

Subbasin: Grande Ronde and Imnaha

Short Description: This project will complete an inventory of the channel simplification of 

the Grande Ronde and Imnaha stream channel and inventory each fish passage barrier in 

each basin. The data will be used to develop restoration priorities and early implementation.

FY02 Request: $191,580

3 YR Estimate: $753,540

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Do Not Fund

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments:

Not fundable. A timely response was not provided to address the ISRP concerns. More 

detail on the prioritization methods and effort was needed.

This is a proposal to inventory stream channel simplification and fish passage barriers in 

each basin, and to prioritize restoration activities. The conceptual basis of the project is 

straightforward and logical.

The proposal provides very little technical background, although important primary literature 

is referenced. The rationale is similarly sparse in detail. The objectives are reasonable, but 

methods are lacking in detail. For example, what is the standard inventory method for fish 

passage barriers developed by OPSW? Only a reference to “see websites” is given in the 

proposal. Details on “other available data” were lacking. 

The area in which the lack of detail about methods is most critical is in the development of a 

prioritization strategy. How will basin characteristics be analyzed? How will the significance 

of barriers to fish utilization of upstream habitat be evaluated? What are the criteria for 

prioritization? Additionally, detail on how the prioritization process will be coordinated with 

various interests should be given as well as a description of the M&E that will be done and 

the methods that will be used. 

Overall, the proposal provides too little detail to evaluate the proposed work in terms of 

need, methods, or relationship to the FWP. 

The prioritization process was described in the presentation. The focus will be on historical 

range, access to productive habitat, and significance of the barrier. 

The project would put staff in SWCDs to inventory streams in coordination with USFS and 

other parties. Historical work will be contracted to the Oregon Natural Heritage Foundation 

using railroad surveys as the primary documents. This is a methodology similar to one used 

for coastal lowlands. Maps will be available through the State GIS site. 

A joint publication with FWS is planned. Willamette historical mapping is available now 

through Oregon Natural Heritage Foundation on their website.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

146

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

Although the proposal presented a potentially good concept, it was incomplete and as a 

result the reviewers could not evaluate the technical and management merits. The reviewers 

identified a need for coordination between this proposal and Proposal 27022 and suggested 

that a funding decision should be deferred until the subbasin planning process is complete. 

In addition, the reviewers indicate that an inventory of fish passage barriers is not warranted 

since barriers to fish passage have already been identified. The managers indicated that there 

has been a lack of coordination with the management agencies. 

Project ID: 27018

Oregon Plan Blue Mountain Province Fish Screening/Fish Passage.

Sponsor: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Protect all species of fish by replacing 6 screening systems that do not 

meet the NMFS design criteria.

FY02 Request: $153,314

3 YR Estimate: $153,314

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. A response is needed if proponents wish to adopt the ISRP’s suggestion that the 

proposal be expanded to address the additional screens and their related O&M that were 

discussed in the site review presentation. This proposal is for an excellent, practical project 

with good (4X) cost share from NMFS and OWEB. It proposes to build 6 rotary drum fish 

screens to replace temporary portable installations and in-place screens that do not meet 

current NMFS screening criteria. It represents ongoing work in the replacement of screens. 

The technical background provides an adequate explanation of the need for screen 

replacement and work done to date. The project has significance to regional programs and 

has clear connection to other recovery projects in the Grande Ronde Subbasin. The 

objectives and task are appropriate to the work described. However, some of the project’s 

objectives are expressed as activities (“ongoing construction and installation”) rather than as 

intended outcomes, i.e., fish saved.

After the replacement of these 6 temporary fish screens, new fish screens will still be needed 

in the Subbasin. It would seem reasonable to increase the budget of this project to allow the 

fabrication shop to increase their production of screens to full capacity (15-20 per year), and 

to fund the personnel required for the maintenance of these screens. Why isn’t the proposal 

asking for funding sufficient to upgrade passage at the diversions remaining after the initial 6 

are completed? If these other diversions interact with listed steelhead and bull trout as the 

PI indicated, then they should also be addressed during this project cycle rather than waiting 

to submit another proposal three years from now.

Reviewers learned during the presentation that funding for the operation and maintenance 

of installed fish screens is limiting the full production of new screens. NMFS is currently 

funding ODFW to monitor the performance of these screens once installed and to maintain 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

147

them in good working order, but is no longer funding the construction of new screens. It is 

unlikely that the NMFS would fund the expanded maintenance requirements associated with 

the installation of additional screens.

The ISRP recommends that the proposal be expanded to budget for screening all necessary 

diversions and to support the FTEs needed for O&M.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project addresses RPA 149. The NMFS identified a lack of biological monitoring.

Project ID: 27022

Wallowa County Culvert Inventory

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribal Fisheries/Watershed Program

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Prioritize on county, state, federal, and private land, culverts that either 

need maintenance or replacement to meet resource needs.

FY02 Request: $170,603

3 YR Estimate: $548,619

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. A response to the ISRP is not necessary, but if funded ISRP concerns should be 

addressed in the contracting process. This is a proposal to identify and prioritize culverts 

that restrict fish passage or fragment habitat. In addition, some culverts carry a risk of 

increased sedimentation due to washing of road fill into streams. An inventory of tributary 

barriers is clearly important to regional programs.

Objectives and tasks are sparse in the proposal, although some attempt is made to describe 

the methods used. The estimates of numbers of culverts to be surveyed aren’t consistent 

with numbers given for the field period or the time taken for each survey. The statement is 

made that it takes an average of 2 hours to survey a culvert, and that during one field season 

(June to October) two crews can survey 400 culverts working 40 hour weeks. At 2 hours per 

culvert, this is only a 10-week, rather than 16-week season. What accounts for the time 

difference? Is it training and data entry? 

Under Objective 6 (“breakdown of project information and peer review”), what kind of peer 

review will be performed? The project should contain a better protocol for providing the 

inventory to fish managers and the public. It should develop an information transfer activity 

that is more proactive than doing presentations “upon request”. 

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This effort may be best addressed during the subbasin assessment effort. The proponent 

should verify with ODFW and ODOT whether 1998 inventories are available for Wallow 

County. Any cost savings achieved by using existing inventories should be applied to 

implementing corrective actions. This project addresses RPA 154.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

148

Project ID: 199202604

Investigate Life History of Spring Chinook Salmon and Summer Steelhead in the Grande 

Ronde River Basin and Monitor Salmonid Populations and Habitat

Sponsor: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Investigate the abundance, migration patterns, survival, and life history 

strategies of spring chinook salmon and summer steelhead from distinct populations and 

implement fish population and habitat monitoring in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha River 

basins.

FY02 Request: $1,412,651 (CBFWA Recommendation: $1,382,766)

3 YR Estimate: $4,393,253 (CBFWA Recommendation: $4,248,421)

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable in Part 

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Fundable in Part

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Early Life History Studies – Ongoing Project

Fundable in part, except for objective 12 - EMAP, which is an important approach, but the 

methods are not adequately described in the response to justify funding. 

This proposal provides a comprehensive evaluation of spring chinook salmon and summer 

steelhead life-history variation. The proposal interacts with essentially all other NEOH 

proposals and is well integrated with the co-managers. Previous research has provided 

useful information on early life history diversity, egg-smolt survival, and smolt survival to 

LGR. The investigators propose to expand the project to include studies of the early life 

history of steelhead and an assessment of winter habitat for chinook. These additions are 

reasonable and in line with the BiOp and the F&W Program. 

The proposal has been modified to reflect recent changes in the direction of salmon 

restoration within the Columbia Basin as indicated in the BiOP, the Basinwide Recovery 

Strategy (the All H paper), and the F&W program. These changes in direction include a 

greater emphasis on protection and restoration of tributary habitat. The authors addressed 

the ISRP’s comments on the need to relate habitat conditions to life histories by proposing 

extensive habitat surveys within the Minam, Lostine, Grande Ronde, and Catherine Creek 

basins. They will attempt to relate egg-smolt survival estimates to habitat conditions. The 

authors also propose to develop a study plan for assessing limiting factors. This is an 

appropriate response to the limiting factors question because careful thought and planning 

will be required to address this difficult issue.

The ISRP notes that Objective 12 (EMAP) is a “new” objective in an on-going proposal. 

The response justifies why this incremental program should be supported but it requires a 

substantial increase in funds. The methods and data do not have appropriate level of 

documentation in the proposal. The study design, parameters that will be measured, 

sampling methods, sampling frequency, and data analysis were not adequately described. 

The cost of this new activity is very large (half a millions dollars annually). The ISRP notes 

that the development of EMAP sampling is likely to be a frequent new activity. Costs 

associated with implementing this sampling procedure should be carefully assessed for 

efficient implementation. How results of the work will be integrated with a basin-scale 

monitoring program should also be discussed. Implementing a detailed new program in one 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

149

specific area may have limited over-all benefit, unless the local issues justify this level of 

investment. The John Day may be a good location to test the use of EMAP for the F&W 

Program. 

To assist in formulating a sound basinwide monitoring program, the proponents are referred 

to the programmatic section of this report on Monitoring, the specific comments on Aquatic 

Monitoring and Evaluation, and the specific comments on Terrestrial Monitoring and 

Evaluation.

Project ID: 27026

Wallowa Lake Project - New Proposal

Sponsor: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

FY02 Request: (CBFWA Recommendation: $132,444)

3 YR Estimate: (CBFWA Recommendation: $265,511)

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments:

Not fundable. The response, a newly submitted proposal, was inadequate. The research is 

necessary to establish a management plan for kokanee in Wallowa Lake and to provide 

essential background assessments for consideration of sockeye re-introduction. While the 

research has the potential to be useful and interesting, the proposal lacks necessary detail in 

several key areas. If this proposal was submitted for the preliminary review it would warrant 

response.

The bioenergetics model will be a key decision tool for assessing predatory and competitive 

impacts. There needs to be a more comprehensive treatment of the modeling approach and 

how it will be verified and used. The authors should also consider use of alternative 

ecosystem models such as Ecopath. Since studies of these interactions have been conducted 

in several Pacific Northwest lake ecosystems, the ISRP suggests the authors solicit advice on 

critical information needs before implementing the sampling program, and before selecting 

the assessment model. Potentially, a focused workshop with experienced researchers would 

be the most effective planning process.

Assessment of the potential for reintroduction of sockeye to Wallowa Lake is used to justify 

the research. The authors do not acknowledge or discuss difficulties with sockeye 

reintroductions in other areas of the northern Pacific. Without the re-introduction 

component, the proposal becomes a study of interactions between introduced species and it 

is unclear how the work would extend what is already known about interaction among 

kokanee, lake trout, and Mysis. Scientifically, the authors do not identify any new hypotheses 

about this interaction that will be tested. In a management context, these studies are likely 

necessary for this specific environment in order to establish an appropriate response. 

Further, the timing of this proposal is important given current planning to replace or 

rehabilitate the Wallowa Lake dam. 

There are a number of that should have been considered in this new proposal:
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

150

a) The spawning abundance and reproductive potential of the kokanee and lake trout will 

be important to assessment modeling, how will quantitative estimates of these 

populations be determined?

b) Creel surveys are included in the proposal but the funding seems limited given the 

months involved in these surveys, are these funds incremental to a core program?

c) Bioenergetics models imply information on growth and survival by species, how will 

these parameters be estimated by species? Aging errors will be involved in these studies 

but how will it be assessed?

d) What other species may be involved in the lake ecosystem? Bull trout are referred to in 

the proposal but the assessment process for this species, and others, are not commented 

on.

e) Sampling via gillnets may not be adequate for species composition; other 

sockeye/kokanee studies use a closing-trawl net to selectively sample at depth. Have 

these sampling tools been examined?

f) Hydroacoustic surveys need to be conducted in a repeatable manner, who will conduct 

these and how will abundances be extrapolated to the lake area?

g) The text makes very limited comment on physical parameters including chlorophyll, how 

will primary productivity be determined and biomass incorporated?

h) What control measures for lake trout have been used elsewhere, and are there associated 

data needs that should be included in these initial studies.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This ongoing project addresses RPA 180 and 184. A significant new addition to this project 

involves EMAPing tasks under Objective 12. This new objective should be implemented as 

part of a comprehensive regional monitoring plan. Discussion of this monitoring plan is 

ongoing and coordination continuing with co-managers on the development of protocols for 

biological and habitat monitoring. The Wallowa Lake component has been resubmitted as a 

stand-alone project. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

151

Project ID: 27024

Life history strategies in Oncorhynchus mykiss: interactions between anadromous and 

resident forms.

Sponsor: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: To aid in conservation efforts for O. mykiss and alternative approaches 

within hatchery programs, evaluate the relationship between anadromous and resident 

forms.

FY02 Request: $237,474

3 YR Estimate: $684,182

ISRP Final Recommendation: Not Fundable

CBFWA Category: Recommended Action

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - Not Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments:

Not fundable. The proposal and response lack sufficient technical detail in the experimental 

design and genetic analysis that the ISRP believes to be essential to these investigations. The 

response provided good background material and results but not methods that are essential 

to the genetic analyses. Nevertheless, the reviewers were intrigued by the proposal and 

suggest that the proposal and response together comprise a good start on a potentially 

worthwhile project. 

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project addresses RPA 184. This proposal evaluates the potential for using local stocks 

of resident rainbow trout to supplement steelhead broodstock at NE Oregon Hatcheries. 

The RFC suggests the study design, methods, and data analysis for each objective in the 

proposed project need to be strengthened.

For Objective 1, more detail is needed to describe the study design, methods and data 

analyses. For example: What conditions will mimic a steelhead smolt program? What times 

and locations will the author sample? What morphological and physical characteristics will 

be measured to assess smolt development? What kind of data analysis will be conducted 

(e.g. ANOVA, MANOVA, Chi-square goodness of fit)? Perhaps citations may be needed to 

demonstrate the strategies and techniques involved. The objectives are clearly defined, but 

there is little reference to how the tasks will be measured. 

Objective 2 focuses on examining the relative proportions of known-origin anadromous and 

resident O. mykiss and unknown-origin juveniles that are produced by anadromous and 

resident forms. The RFC applauds the use of otolith microchemistry analyses to identify life 

history strategies and determine maternal origin and encourages the sponsor to summarize 

the microchemistry pilot work to strengthen the argument that otolith microchemistry would 

be a useful tool to address the objective. Again, the author should better define the study 

design, methods and data analysis in the tasks to strengthen the proposed objective. The 

approach is conceptually an excellent idea; however, more detail is needed to demonstrate 

the best use of the techniques and principles to address the objective.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

152

Northeast Oregon Hatchery Program

Hatchery production in the Blue Mountain Province involves the Lower Snake River 

Compensation Program and a program referred to as the Northeast Oregon Hatchery 

program (NEOH). The latter program developed in the late 1980s since salmon returns to 

local rivers continued to decline even following development of the LSRCP. Several 

proposals reviewed by the ISRP address programs in the NEOH program and specifically 

the production of spring chinook to supplement natural production in the Grande Ronde 

River. To clarify the inter-relation of these proposals a brief history of the NEOH has been 

extracted from project proposal #198805031 and a diagram prepared to summarize the 

proposals involved (Figure 1). Currently there are no hatchery releases in the Asotin 

watershed of the Blue Mountain province. LSRCP activities deal with fall chinook in the 

Snake River, and steelhead in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde rivers, and contributed to 

rearing and monitoring components of the Grande Ronde programs.

Section 9e, NEOH Master Plan (prepared by B. Ashe, NPT)

“The initial measure for establishing the Northeast Oregon Hatchery (NEOH) was adopted 

in the Northwest Power Planning Council’s 1987 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife 

Program. First steps in this process began in 1988 when the NPPC authorized the Nez 

Perce Tribe (NPT), the Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) and the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) to submit a master plan for review. At that time, 

the request to those agencies was a master plan that addressed not only salmon (spring 

chinook) and steelhead, but also coho, sockeye, and fall chinook ("that the facility need not 

necessarily be limited to spring chinook, a s originally proposed, if other stocks would benefit from hatchery 

supplementation”).

Under the 1994 Fish and Wildlife Program, this project is related to Measure 7.4L1, which 

directs the Bonneville to:

Fund planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance and evaluation of 

artificial production facilities to raise chinook salmon and steelhead for enhancement 

in the Hood, Walla Walla, Grande Ronde and Imnaha rivers and elsewhere.

As can be seen in the program language quoted above, the Northeast Oregon Hatchery 

Project was an initial planning effort by the fishery co-managers to restore anadromous fish 

runs throughout Northeast Oregon. Restoring spring chinook in the Grande Ronde 

Subbasin was a discreet segment of that larger initiative. In March 1996, this Grande Ronde 

spring chinook portion of the NEOH initiative was given special status -- it was approved by 

the Council as one of the 15 high-priority supplementation projects.

Unfortunately, even with Council's high-priority status, co-managers could not agree on an 

appropriate production strategy for Grande Ronde spring chinook, given issues including 

ESA requirements, Oregon’s Wild Fish Policy, Lower Snake River Compensation Plan 

requirements, Treaty and trust responsibility requirements, and other considerations. Comanager disagreements were resolved through the United States v. Oregon dispute 

resolution, the co-managers agreed to ask an ad-hoc independent scientific panel to review 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

153

their respective proposed production strategies in the Grande Ronde basin, and provide a 

determination on what would be appropriate. The panel offered several options and 

recommendations, one of which was that an endemic broodstock should be developed for 

supplementation uses in the Grande Ronde Subbasin.

The co-managers proposed two strategies to implement an endemic broodstock approach 

for Grande Ronde spring chinook: captive broodstock and conventional broodstock. In 

1994, the co-managers agreed on the strategy for implementation of the captive broodstock 

component and initiated an emergency program. This captive broodstock component 

became the Grande Ronde Captive Broodstock project and the Council approved 

emergency funding in the fall of 1997 for this effort. This captive brood component 

consisted of an expansion at Bonneville Hatchery and improvements to Lookingglass 

Hatchery.

As the Grande Ronde captive brood project evolved, other projects under NEOH evolved 

with it and were modified to encompass the development of the conventional broodstock 

component of the overall endemic broodstock approach for Grande Ronde River, which 

was initiated in 1997. The need for the endemic component became the Grande Ronde 

Basin Endemic Spring Chinook Supplementation project (GRESCP) and was approved by 

Council on June 10 1998. The approved action recommended funding for the construction 

of adult collection weirs and juvenile acclimation facilities at three sites — Catherine Creek, 

Upper Grande Ronde River and Lostine River.

In 1998, the master planning development refocused on how to more realistically phase in 

rebuilding goals given limited regional funding and broodstock limitations related to low 

numbers of available returning fish. The original concept for the NEOH Master Plans called 

for “new” production that would be additional to the LSRCP production currently occurring 

at Lookingglass Hatchery. However, with the continuing decline of salmon runs and the 

subsequent overload this caused on Lookingglass (i.e. with the additional burdens placed on 

the facility), as a tool to forestall extinction of Northeast Oregon chinook, the NPT 

concentrated their planning efforts on alleviating stress at the facility and restructuring where 

existing production would occur. The goal was not new production, but address the current 

levels of production (i.e. currently permitted program) under LSRCP using new and 

improved techniques.

As a result, the Grande Ronde and Imnaha Spring Chinook Master Plan (Ashe et al. 2000) 

was developed with this new focus and submitted to the NPPC in April, 2000. Upon 

approval of the Spring Chinook Master Plan the NPPC also authorized the NPT to reinitiate 

the original planning scope of the project by completing a master plan for Grande Ronde 

coho salmon and Grande Ronde and Imnaha steelhead.”

This text provides an excellent background for the tasks included in the current NEOH 

proposal (NEOH Master Plan, proposal #198805301) and introduces the programs included 

in the GRESCP. While the NEOH proposals is described as the “planning” component of 

supplementation and restoration programs, the GRESCP are spring chinook programs 

“implemented" due to their extremely depressed returns in the mid-1990s. Future progress 

for tasks included in the Master Plan require review through the NPPC’s 3-Step process. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

154

Many of the costs must be considered “place holders” assuming successful completion of 

these planning and review tasks. Five other proposals constitute the supplementation 

activities for spring chinook in the Grande Ronde River (Fig 1).

Figure 1. Inter-relation of the NEOH and GRESCP proposals reviewed in the Blue 

Mountain Province, September 2001. Color-coded boxes denote related proposals 

and activities.

Northeast Oregon Hatchery Proposals

• for Imnaha &Grande Ronde rivers

• planning and new facilities for Spring

chinook supplementation (depends on

final NPPC 3-Step process)

• planning for development of endemic

brood stock for summer Steelhead,

supplementation and restoration

• planning for re-introduction of Coho

salmon (preliminary assessment done)

• planning for re-introduction of

Sockeye salmon in Wallowa Lake

• and associated Monitoring and

Evaluation (limited info provided)

• Implementation of captive brood and

conventional hatchery programs:

• Juvenile acclimation and release sites,

adult weir and sampling sites ...

conventional hatchery program to

supplement natural production in the

Lostine R., Catherine Cr., & upper

Grande Ronde R. (projects #198805305,

#199800702, #199800703)

• natural production reserves in the

Minam and Wenaha rivers

• Captive brood stock development for

Lostine R., Catherine Cr., & upper

Grande Ronde R. (projects #199801001,

#199801006)

• Monitoring and Evaluation included

 NEOH Master Plan (#198805301) Grande Ronde Endemic Spring Chinook

Supplementation Program, 1996

Lower Snake River Compensation Plan

provides for Spring Chinook rearing at

Lookingglass Hatchery, fall chinook &

steelhead programs Province, and M&E.

A notable component of the GRESCP is the natural production reserves maintained in the 

Minam and Wenaha rivers. Spring chinook production in these rivers has not been 

supplemented with hatchery production but have received strays from past programs. These 

systems may serve as “controls” for comparison with trends in the supplemented streams in 

the Grande Ronde system but limited data was presented on returns in the Minam or 

Wenaha rivers. Monitoring of spawning escapements to these systems is included in a 

LSRCP project (#200109, LSRCP-Oregon Evaluation Studies; see ISRP 2001-12B) but is 

not included in the GRESCP activities listed above. 

The artificial production programs in the Province involve four co-management agencies: 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of 

the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the latter as managers of 

the LSRCP). Significant resources are apparently required to achieve the cooperation and 

coordination to conduct these programs. However, based on the ISRP tour and their 

proposals, these co-managers seem to have been successful in achieving this. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

155

Review of Specific Proposals

1. Project ID: 198805301

Northeast Oregon Hatchery Master Plan

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

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, spring chinook and steelhead, and reintroduction of coho and sockeye salmon.

FY02 Request: $2,714,740

3 YR Estimate: $24,232,740

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The response addressed ISRP concerns but was somewhat dismissive of ISRP 

review comments. For example, regarding the concern for potential competition between 

coho and steelhead, the response misses the point. The question is one of the competition 

effects of reintroduction when one stock is depressed. Other differences reflect perspectives 

on what activities have already been endorsed by the Council. These differences however 

are not scientific issues and any concerns for technical issues can be addressed during the 3-

Step Planning process. See the ISRP review of the NEOH Step 2 submittals that is part 

three of the three reports submitted December 21, 2001 (ISRP 2001-12C) for more detailed 

comments on technical issues pertaining to this project.

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments: (included for reference)

Response required. As described NEOH section above, this proposal is a continuation of 

past planning and design efforts to develop conservation production facilities in the Imnaha 

and Grande Ronde rivers necessary to implement salmon recovery programs for native, ESA 

listed, spring chinook and steelhead, and reintroduction of coho and sockeye salmon. The 

tasks by species are each at different levels of preparedness with the spring chinook plans 

significantly in advance of the other species (NPPC Step-2 proposal submitted). The 

proposal contains some very good background information and description of relations to 

Regional Programs and other projects. Unfortunately, the more technical sections 

concerning objectives and methods are weaker, and monitoring and evaluation tasks 

similarly undefined or described (even though a large budget was identified). The ISRP 

identified similar concern for the objectives in their last review. We recognize though that 

for spring chinook these concerns for objectives and methods were addressed in the StepOne NEOH Master Plan (Ashe et al. 2000) and accepted following the ISRP review (ISRP 

20000-6). ISRP questions concerning monitoring and evaluation have been addressed in the 

Step-2 Submittal to the NPPC (August 2001) but have not be fully reviewed at this time. We 

plan to complete our preliminary review in late October. Following our Provincial review 

though, the ISRP requests response to some general issues for consideration:

1) This proposal addresses four species for eventual restoration either through 

supplementation (spring chinook and steelhead through development of endemic brood 

stocks) or re-introduction of extirpated species (coho and sockeye salmon). NPPC 

authorized development of master plans for coho (November 2001) and steelhead 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

156

(October 2002). For coho salmon, a feasibility analysis (Cramer and Witty 1998) 

concluded that “the prospect for successful introduction was good, however, annual 

supplementation would likely be necessary to sustain the adult return goals, due to 

limiting factors out of the subbasin”. The ISRP does not wish to comment on the desire 

of local agencies for these resources but an “implied” priority that concerns us. Do the 

co-managers intend to proceed with coho before or simultaneously with the steelhead 

programs? If so, we note that the listing of steelhead requires a higher priority on this 

species and, biologically we note a concern for potential competition between these 

species ... particularly when production of natural steelhead is depressed. Coho salmon 

are extremely opportunistic in their habitat use and may generate an additional impact on 

steelhead that has not been acknowledged. The co-managers should comment on the 

timing of these events and/or their understanding of these potential interactions. Our 

recommendation would be to defer coho re-introduction until steelhead is well 

established and natural populations more secure. Further, the re-introduction of sockeye 

salmon to Wallowa Lake should be deferred until studies of the lake ecosystem 

demonstrate an understanding of why kokanee production is declining. Re-introduction 

of sockeye will be very unlikely to succeed if the inter-specific competition in the lake is 

not favorable to kokanee. At this time, resources should be directed to studying this 

ecosystem instead of planning enhancement facilities.

2) As in the past review, the committee continues to be concerned about the emphasis on 

hatchery-oriented production to support recovery without some balanced approach to 

correcting the root problems. Two concerns should be addressed, these include the 

expectation of harvest on these recovering stocks and the absence of a habitat 

restoration plan incorporated into the master plan. As expressed previously, are we 

“treating the symptoms, not solutions”? The implementation of harvest must be 

conducted carefully to avoid the obvious conflict with allowing these listed species to 

spawn and recovery ... the co-managers should establish precautionary guidelines for 

when harvest is allowed and at what rates. The habitat issues are large, but must be 

addressed before our investments in facilities are likely to show sustained benefits for 

natural production. Many habitat projects were reviewed by the committee, but within 

the master plan, do the co-managers have a plan to monitor the overall watershed 

“health” or productivity of the stocks? The sum of the individual habitat projects should 

be evaluated to assess success and ensure harvest rates are compatible with stock 

productivities in their current environments.

3) Past ISRP reviews were critical of this proposal 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.” In the current proposal, 

objectives 5 and 6 (Section 9f) are not included in the budget summary, and four of the 

objectives involve monitoring and evaluation but without any clarification of tasks, 

methods, or intended uses. This panel continues to share the concerns expressed 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

157

previously. We recognize that this likely results from the scope of activities included in

one proposal but given our task of evaluating the scientific basis of the proposals ... this 

format of presentation is unlikely to receive positive reviews without addressing the 

concerns expressed. Can the co-managers address these concerns or is an alternative 

format of necessary? For example, four proposals with the necessary detail maybe 

required for technical review. 

4) While the spawning escapement monitoring in the Minam and Wenaha rivers are not 

included as an activity in this NEOH Master Plan, the comparability of monitoring 

programs in these treated streams and those control streams is of concern. For a valid 

comparison between systems, similar evaluation programs should be conducted in each 

system. At present, our understanding of the surveys in the Minam and Wenaha rivers is 

that visual index surveys are conducted; whereas in the Lostine, Catherine, and Grande 

Ronde rivers more quantitative surveys are now conducted (weirs and mark-recapture). 

The co-managers should comment on the comparability of these surveys and/or how 

they could evaluate this concern.

At present, this review panel is unable to support the proposal, and its large budget, due to 

its uncertain scientific basis. Based on the need for a “sound scientific basis” to the 

proposals, the committee can not adequately review these proposals due to a lack of 

biological or quantitative goals, measurable objectives, and methodology. Our experience 

with the Step-1 process for spring chinook indicated that these can be developed but they 

are not present in this submission. Our suggestion would be to defer final comment until 

the Step processes begin but the issue of allowing for substantial budgets (without a strong 

basis presented) would have to be addressed by the Council. 

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

The sponsors indicated that the M&E plan is still in development (will be completed in the 

third step of the Three-Step process). This project is considered BASE by NMFS.

The objectives describe in the 2002 proposal are for planning, not specifically for HGMP. If 

the Step process recommends proceeding to the next step the funds to develop HGMP or 

Master Plans further (which involve much of the same information) would proceed. This 

differs from the ongoing LSRCP tasks or responsibilities, which deal with existing 

production programs and NEOH deals with modified or expanded steelhead production 

that would require a new/different HGMP. 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

158

2. Project ID: 198805305

Northeast Oregon Hatcheries Planning (ODFW)

Sponsor: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

FY02 Request: $79,376

3 YR Estimate: $248,187

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

and

3. Project ID: 199800704

Northeast Oregon Hatcheries Implementation (ODFW)

FY02 Request: $206,048

3 YR Estimate: $633,197

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

Short Description: Work with co-managers to implement the Grande Ronde Endemic 

Spring Chinook Supplementation Program (GRESCSP).

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable, response was adequate. These proposals provide for ODFW to work with comanagers to implement the Grande Ronde Endemic Spring Chinook Supplementation 

program. The activities are largely related to operating and maintenance expenses for 

program coordination, the safe transport of juveniles and brood adults from field sites to the 

Lookingglass Hatchery, and assistance to the Fish Health Pathologist (USFWS). Minimal 

funds are requested for M&E but the activities seem more involved than would be provided 

by the limited M&E budget ($20,973 in FY02). A very strong cost sharing budget is 

included in this proposal: $3 million per year from the LSRCP for Lookingglass and Irrigon 

hatcheries, M&E and fish health inspections, plus $70,000 for the ODFW District Biologist. 

The activities are well integrated with the associated proposals (#199800702 and 

#199800703) and captive brood program. A response was received, concerning the 

activities to be included in M&E (Objective 4, section 9f). As noted in project #198805301, 

final monitoring plans will be developed as the Step 2 process proceeds.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

M&E plan still in development (will be completed in the third step of the Three-Step 

process). This project is considered BASE by NMFS.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

159

4. Project ID: 199800702

Grande Ronde Supplementation: Lostine River O&M and M&E

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Operate adult trapping and juvenile acclimation facilities and conduct 

monitoring and evaluation in the Lostine River to implement the Lostine component of the 

Grande Ronde Basin Endemic Spring Chinook Supplementation Program (GRESP).

FY02 Request: $609,302

3 YR Estimate: $1,902,671

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. This NPT proposal coupled with the matching CTUIR proposal (#199800703) 

provides the core activities for the GRESCP. The Nez Perce Tribe is responsible for 

implementation, coordination, and facilitation of the Lostine River component of the 

GRESCP. Tasks included in the proposal include projection co-ordination with the comanagers (ODFW, CTUIR, USFWS), operation and maintenance of the Lostine River 

acclimation site, operation and maintenance of the adult weir and trapping site, extensive 

M&E programs, and reporting. The proposal is well written providing good background 

and relationships to other projects, annual summaries of work since 1997 including past 

costs, and detailed goals and objectives. Minor comments on the report include that adult 

population sizes for 1999 and 2000 return years were not included in the result section 

(section 9e), and that more detailed information on the mark -recapture estimates of 

population sizes in the river should be provided (Objective 6, sampling surveys, etc.). While 

the work seems well organized, reference to published reports or records of this work would 

have strengthened the technical presentation. For future proposals, the authors should 

report results of the genetic sampling and analyses. The proposal notes this task and 

contract for analyses but does not provide any insight into results to-date.

The proposal seems to have responded to many of the comments in the past ISRP review. 

For example, while the objectives continue to simply state tasks that might address biological 

goals, the goals of the program are stated in the beginning of section 9f. One continued 

limitation is the limited collection of habitat data (temperature and discharge information) at 

trap sites. During the tour, concerns were expressed about habitat quality in the lower 

Lostine River, but the proposal does not include any consideration of this as a limiting factor 

in smolt survival, etc. 

Overall, the ISRP acknowledge a well-prepared proposal with a strong M&E component. 

We look forward to reviewing results and publication of this work.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

M&E is performed through LSRCP. This project is considered BASE by NMFS.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

160

5. Project ID: 199800703

Facility O&M and Program M&E for Grande Ronde Spring Chinook Salmon and Summer 

Steelhead

Sponsor: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Develop, implement, and evaluate integrated conventional and captive 

brood hatchery projects to prevent extinction and stabilize populations of threatened spring 

chinook salmon and summer steelhead populations in the Grande Ronde River.

FY02 Request: $702,010 (CBFWA Recommendation: $683,398)

3 YR Estimate: $2,405,288 (CBFWA Recommendation: $2,374,249)

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable, adequate response and, as requested, the proposal has been substantially improved 

through reorganization and the provision of greater detail. This CTUIR proposal coupled 

with the matching NPT proposal (#199800702) provides the core activities for the 

GRESCP. The CTUIR is responsible for implementation, coordination, and facilitation of 

the Catherine Creek and upper Grande Ronde component of the GRESCP, plus this 

proposal involves some steelhead activities. Tasks included in the proposal include 

projection coordination with the co-managers (ODFW, NPT, USFWS), operation and 

maintenance of the two acclimation sites, operation and maintenance of the adult weir and 

trapping sites, extensive M&E programs, and reporting. In general the historical 

information and relations between projects are well described and informative. This 

proposal initially lacked the detailed information and tasks that were presented in proposal 

#199800702, but the revisions adequately addressed this concern. 

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project is considered BASE by NMFS.

6. Project ID: 199801001

Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook Captive Broodstock Program

Sponsor: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Rapidly increase numbers of chinook salmon in the Grande Ronde 

Basin while protecting genetic diversity, and develop and evaluate methodologies for captive 

broodstock programs.

FY02 Request: $739,096

3 YR Estimate: $2,329,994

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. This is a well-written proposal that focuses on research and evaluation of 

alternative approaches to supplementation through captive broodstock. The proposal 

presents a thorough technical background that puts the project in context, articulates 

conditions project success, and lists the operating assumptions behind the experimental 

captive broodstock program. The rationale and significance to regional programs is detailed 
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

161

and clear. The project is well integrated with numerous other efforts in the Grande Ronde 

Subbasin. The project history section includes results to date, with interpretation of those 

results and publications produced. 

The proposal would be structurally improved if the tasks were associated with specific 

objectives, rather than presenting a list of 8 objectives with tasks listed under “operation and 

maintenance” and “monitoring and evaluation.” The presentation of methods is thorough. 

Some minor comments for consideration are:

1) DNA samples are being collected but not processed apparently due to an uncertainty 

concerning what will be derived from this work. Information could be gained at several 

levels of detail. Samples of the juveniles collected for grow-out to brood stock could be 

examined to test whether many sibs were collected in the randomized samples. By 

sampling the brood adults, these data could be compared with the mature progeny (upon 

return) to investigate the numbers of parents represented in the population (an 

important determinant of the genetically effective population size of the natural stock). 

We would recommend the samples be processed and consultations with a population 

geneticist.

2) There is limited description of the spawning matrix referred to. A reference for more 

detail should be provided and more detail on the spawning protocols provided.

3) The reduced fecundity in the captive brood stock will reduce the F1 progeny produced. 

The level of reduction is substantial but no response or investigation was proposed? It is 

not evident in the proposal if the fecundity was reduced due to reduced body size, or is 

there concern for the nutrition and health of these fish?

4) PIT tags are applied to study survival by family and/or treatment, but no indication was 

presented about how the number of tags applied was determined. This is an important 

project that merits careful evaluation. The principle investigators should ensure that 

adequate numbers of tags are being applied in order to assess the questions of interest. 

A statistical assessment of the number of tags applied should be undertaken and 

reported.

5) This is a unique opportunity to study the genetics of these fish. While the proposal is 

well prepared, there is an apparently lack of quantitative genetic interest. This aspect of 

the study may simply be under-stated in the text but if not, then an expert in this field 

should be consulted to review these procedures and ensure that opportunities will not be 

lost.

In conclusion, while we endorse this proposal and the need for a captive brood program 

when it was implemented, it is wise to re-state the advice from the ISRP’s last review:

Even though the proposal acknowledges that threats to adult survival, particularly 

habitat and passage, must be solved for the broodstock programs to be successful 

conservation or mitigation tools, to fund these captive broodstock programs without 

concomitant emphasis on solving the root problems seems financially foolish and futile.

This comment is not targeted at this particular proposal but is an ongoing consideration for 

the NEOH Master Plan and the need to balance culture activities with efforts to correct the 

original causes of the problem.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

162

7. Project ID: 199801006

Captive Broodstock Artificial Propagation

Sponsor: Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resources Management

Subbasin: Grande Ronde

Short Description: Implement and evaluate the captive broodstock project through the 

collection of juvenile salmon from the wild and maintaining them in captivity. The founding 

generation is spawned and the resulting F1 generation is released back to the parental stream.

FY02 Request: $170,177

3 YR Estimate: $526,000

ISRP Final Recommendation: Fundable

CBFWA Category: High Priority

ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Agree - Fundable

ISRP Final Review Comments: 

Fundable. The response comprehensively addresses the review comments. This proposal is 

for monitoring and evaluation of progeny of the captive brood stock collected and reared 

under project #199801001. The proposal involves co-ordination with state and federal 

agencies, assistance in the monitoring and evaluation of juveniles and brood adults reared at 

Bonneville Hatchery and Manchester Marine Laboratory, monitoring and evaluation of the 

F1 generation juveniles and returning adults, and reporting. Like proposal #199801001, this 

is a well-written proposal that focuses on research and evaluation of alternative approaches 

to supplementation through captive broodstock. The proposal presents a thorough technical 

background that puts the project in context, the rationale and significance to regional 

programs is detailed and clear, and project history section includes results to date, with some 

comparisons between stocks and/or rearing treatments. Objectives are again stated as tasks, 

and not measurable comparisons or tests, but the intentions in this context are clear. 

In a past review, there was a question concerning overlap between this program and M&E 

associated with the conventional hatchery production activities. Our understanding is that 

these M&E tasks are discrete. However, there is an important question associated with these 

marking programs. The comparison of natural, conventional, and captive brood production 

will obviously be based on the extensive use of PIT tags in many of the proposals reviewed. 

Have the co-managers considered the adequacy of marking rates to compare these three 

types of spring chinook production, and if so, what level of difference in performance may 

be detectable? This latter issue is not only relevant to this one proposal, but other NPT 

proposals have noted methods for estimating the numbers of PIT tags required for 

comparisons. A statistical basis to the tagging program would clearly strengthen this, and 

related, proposals.

CBFWA Project Review Comments:

This project is considered BASE by NMFS.
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

Mountain Snake: Table of Proposals Sorted by ISRP Recommendation, ISRP Comparison with CBFWA Recommendation, and Project ID 163

Table of Proposals: Sorted by ISRP Recommendation and Comparison with CBFWA Recommendation

Mountain Snake

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin

ISRP Final 

Rec. CBFWA Category

ISRP 

Comparison 

w/CBFWA

FY02 

sponsor 

request

FY02 

CBFWA rec. Page

28001 Evaluate Factors Influencing Bias 

and Precision of Chinook Salmon 

Redd Counts

USDA Forest 

Service- Rocky 

Mountain 

Research Station

Salmon Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$198,738 $198,738 53

28020 Nez Perce Tribe Harvest Monitoring 

Program

Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$326,646 $326,646 82

28034 Chinook Salmon Smolt Survival and 

Smolt to Adult Return Rate 

Quantification, South Fork Salmo n 

River, Idaho

Nez Perce Tribe Salmon Fundable 

(med 

priority)

High Priority Agree -

Fundable 

(Medium 

Priority)

$660,000 $660,000 54

28047 Restore and Protect Red River 

Watershed

Nez Perce Tribe 

Fisheries 

Watershed

Clearwater Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$199,567 $199,567 96

28048 Protect and Restore Crooked Fork 

Creek to Colt Killed Analysis Area

Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$423,365 $423,365 97

28049 Restore and Protect Slate Creek 

Watershed

Nez Perce Tribe 

Fisheries 

Watershed

Salmon Fundable 

(med 

priority)

High Priority Agree -

Fundable 

(Medium 

Priority)

$231,841 $231,841 75
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

Mountain Snake: Table of Proposals Sorted by ISRP Recommendation, ISRP Comparison with CBFWA Recommendation, and Project ID 164

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin

ISRP Final 

Rec. CBFWA Category

ISRP 

Comparison 

w/CBFWA

FY02 

sponsor 

request

FY02 

CBFWA rec. Page

28059 Restoring anadromous fish habitat in 

the Lapwai Creek watershed.

Nez Perce Soil 

and Water 

Conservation 

District

Clearwater Fundable 

(high 

priority)

High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$372,060 $372,060 112

199102800 Monitoring smolt migrations of wild 

Snake River sp/sum chinook salmon

National Marine 

Fisheries Service

Salmon Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$350,000 $350,000 50

199107200 Redfish Lake Sockeye Salmon 

Captive Broodstock Program

IDFG - IOSC Salmon Fundable 

(low 

priority)

High Priority Agree -

Fundable 

(Low 

Priority)

$853,229 $853,229 60

199107300 Idaho Natural Production Monitoring 

and Evaluation

IDFG - IOSC Salmon Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$831,000 $831,000 49

199401500 Idaho Fish Screen Improvement IDFG - IOSC Salmon Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$1,000,000 $1,000,000 62

199405000 Salmon River Habitat Enhancement 

M & E

ShoshoneBannock TribesSalmon Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$249,500 $249,500 78

199607702 Protect and Restore Lolo Creek 

Watershed

Nez Perce Tribe 

Fisheries 

Watershed 

Program

Clearwater Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$502,192 $502,192 104

199607703 Protecting and Restoring the 

Waw'aatamnima (Fishing)(Squaw) 

Creek to 'Imnaamatnoon (Legendary 

Bear)(Papoose) Creek Watersheds 

Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$489,300 $489,300 105
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

Mountain Snake: Table of Proposals Sorted by ISRP Recommendation, ISRP Comparison with CBFWA Recommendation, and Project ID 165

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin

ISRP Final 

Rec. CBFWA Category

ISRP 

Comparison 

w/CBFWA

FY02 

sponsor 

request

FY02 

CBFWA rec. Page

199607705 Restore McComas 

Meadows/Meadow Creek Watershed

Nez Perce Tribe 

Fisheries 

Watershed 

Program

Clearwater Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$573,832 $573,832 106

199608600 Clearwater Focus Program Idaho Soil 

Conservation 

Commission

Clearwater Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$103,626 $103,626 107

199700100 Captive Rearing Project for Salmon 

River Chinook Salmon

IDFG - IOSC Salmon Fundable 

(low 

priority)

High Priority Agree -

Fundable 

(Low 

Priority)

$750,482 $750,482 59

199706000 Clearwater Subbasin Focus 

Watershed Program - NPT

Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$218,000 $218,000 107

199901700 Protect and Restore Lapwai Creek 

Watershed

Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater Fundable 

(high 

priority) 

High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$436,600 $436,600 111

199901800 Characterize and quantify residual 

steelhead in the Clearwater River, 

Idaho

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service

Clearwater Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$101,950 $101,950 113

200002800 Evaluate Status of Pacific Lamprey in 

the Clearwater River Drainage, Idaho

Idaho 

Department of 

Fish and Game 

and Idaho Office 

of Species 

Conservation

Clearwater Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$144,550 $144,550 113
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

Mountain Snake: Table of Proposals Sorted by ISRP Recommendation, ISRP Comparison with CBFWA Recommendation, and Project ID 166

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin

ISRP Final 

Rec. CBFWA Category

ISRP 

Comparison 

w/CBFWA

FY02 

sponsor 

request

FY02 

CBFWA rec. Page

200003400 Protect and Restore The North 

Lochsa Face Analysis Area 

Watersheds

Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$285,835 $285,835 114

200003500 Rehabilitate Newsome Creek 

Watershed - South Fork Clearwater 

River

Nez Perce Tribe 

Fisheries 

Watershed

Clearwater Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$287,732 $287,732 114

200003600 Protect & Restore Mill Creek Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$105,560 $105,560 115

Total Agree - ISRP Fundable and CBFWA High Priority $9,695,605 $9,695,605

28008 Riparian Conservation Easement 

Purchase of Scarrow Property on 

Lake Creek a Tributary to the Secesh 

River, Idaho.

Idaho 

Department of 

Fish and Game 

and Idaho Office 

of Species 

Conservation

Salmon Fundable 

(medium 

priority)

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable but 

medium 

priority

$68,500 $68,500 70

199901400 Little Canyon Creek SubwatershedSteelhead Trout Habitat Improvement 

Project

Lewis Soil 

Conservation 

District

Clearwater Fundable 

(Low 

Priority)

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable but 

low priority

$236,500 $236,500 108

28006 Tag and evaluate PIT-tag retention in 

sub-yearling chinook salmon

Biomark, Inc. Salmon Fundable 

(Medium 

Priority)

Recommended 

Action

Agree -

Fundable 

(Medium 

Priority)

$82,044 $82,044 58
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

Mountain Snake: Table of Proposals Sorted by ISRP Recommendation, ISRP Comparison with CBFWA Recommendation, and Project ID 167

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin

ISRP Final 

Rec. CBFWA Category

ISRP 

Comparison 

w/CBFWA

FY02 

sponsor 

request

FY02 

CBFWA rec. Page

28007 Causes and effects of nonnative trout 

invasions in the Salmon and 

Clearwater River subbasins

USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky 

Mountain 

Research Station

Salmon Fundable 

(Low 

Priority)

Recommended 

Action

Agree -

Fundable 

(Low 

Priority)

$64,900 $64,900 29

28023 Evaluate and Control Brook Trout 

Populations – Addressing 

Competition and Hybridization 

Threats in the Clearwater River 

Drainage, Idaho.

Idaho 

Department of 

Fish and Game 

and Idaho Office 

of Species 

Conservation

Clearwater Fundable 

(Low 

Priority)

Recommended 

Action

Agree -

Fundable 

(Low 

Priority)

$183,800 $153,800 25

28058 Restore Fish Passage and Habitat in 

the Upper East Fork of the South 

Fork of the Salmon River 

IDFG - IOSC Salmon Fundable 

(Medium 

Priority)

Recommended 

Action

Agree -

Fundable 

(Medium 

Priority)

$842,000 $842,000 76

28060 Assess Stream Quality for Salmonid 

Recovery in the Lower Clearwater 

Subbasin

Nez Perce Soil 

and Water 

Conservation 

District

Clearwater Fundable 

(Low 

Priority)

Recommended 

Action

Agree -

Fundable 

(Low 

Priority)

$95,148 $95,148 98

28010 Nez Perce Salmon River Terrestrial Nez Perce Tribe Salmon Fundable in 

Part

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$2,801,996 $2,801,996 73

28013 Renovate Selway Falls Anadromous 

Fish Passage Tunnel

IDFG - IOSC Clearwater Fundable in 

Part

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$344,700 $344,700 81

28016 Restoration of the Yankee Fork 

Salmon River

Custer Soil & 

Water 

Conservation 

District, IOSC

Salmon Fundable in 

Part

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$799,785 $799,785 69
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

Mountain Snake: Table of Proposals Sorted by ISRP Recommendation, ISRP Comparison with CBFWA Recommendation, and Project ID 168

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin

ISRP Final 

Rec. CBFWA Category

ISRP 

Comparison 

w/CBFWA

FY02 

sponsor 

request

FY02 

CBFWA rec. Page

28018 Lower Salmon River Tributary 

Protection and Enhancement

Idaho 

Department of 

Fish and Game

Salmon Fundable in 

Part

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$101,000 $101,000 72

28021 Lower Clearwater Habitat 

Enhancement Project

Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater Fundable in 

Part

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$1,428,000 $1,428,000 82

28022 Evaluate Bull Trout Life History In 

Dworshak Reservoir, N.F. Clearwater 

River Drainage, ID

IDFG - IOSC Clearwater Fundable in 

Part

High Priority (Obj 

4, see comments)\

Recommended 

Action (all else)

Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part; Agree -

Objective 4 

is High 

Priority

$208,850 $133,000 24

28025 Potlatch River Watershed RestorationLatah Soil and 

Water 

Conservation 

District

Clearwater Fundable in 

Part

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$505,125 $505,125 84

28031 Evaluation of Unclipped Hatchery 

Steelhead Released in the Clearwater 

and Salmon River Basins

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service

Clearwater Fundable in 

Part

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$484,993 $484,993 86

28036 Holistic Restoration of Critical 

Habitat on Non-federal Lands in the 

Pahsimeroi Watershed, Idaho

Custer Soil & 

Water 

Conservation 

District / IOSC

Salmon Fundable in 

Part

High Priority Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$2,606,341 $2,606,341 64

28043 Crooked River Ecosystem 

Assessment at the Watershed Scale

Nez Perce Tribe 

Fisheries/

Watershed

Clearwater Fundable in 

Part

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$131,213 $131,213 92
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

Mountain Snake: Table of Proposals Sorted by ISRP Recommendation, ISRP Comparison with CBFWA Recommendation, and Project ID 169

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin

ISRP Final 

Rec. CBFWA Category

ISRP 

Comparison 

w/CBFWA

FY02 

sponsor 

request

FY02 

CBFWA rec. Page

28045 Evaluating stream habitat using the 

Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries/Watershed 

Watershed Monitoring and 

Evaluation Plan

Nez Perce Tribe 

Fisheries and 

Watershed

Clearwater Fundable in 

Part

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$381,108 $381,108 93

28050 Protect and Restore Little Salmon 

River

Nez Perce Tribe 

Fisheries/

Watershed

Salmon Fundable in 

Part

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$262,896 $262,896 74

28052 Adult Snake River steelhead 

monitoring in the South Fork Salmon 

River Basin.

NPT/Pacific 

Northwest 

National 

Laboratory

Salmon Fundable in 

Part 

(consider 

with 

19970300, 

27019)

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$708,000 $708,000 35

198335000 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater Fundable in 

Part 

(phase 1)

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part (Phase 1 

level only)

$3,485,000 $3,485,000 99

198335003 Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery 

Monitoring And Evaluation

Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater Fundable in 

Part 

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part (at level 

consistent 

with phase 

1)

$1,884,430 $1,974,430 100

198709900 28024* - Dworshak Dam Impacts 

Assessment and Fisheries 

Investigation

IDFG - IOSC Clearwater Fundable in 

Part

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$468,801 $344,200 83

199107100 Snake River Sockeye Salmon Habitat 

and Limnological Research

ShoshoneBannock TribesSalmon Fundable in 

Part

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$441,369 $441,369 61
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

Mountain Snake: Table of Proposals Sorted by ISRP Recommendation, ISRP Comparison with CBFWA Recommendation, and Project ID 170

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin

ISRP Final 

Rec. CBFWA Category

ISRP 

Comparison 

w/CBFWA

FY02 

sponsor 

request

FY02 

CBFWA rec. Page

199202603 Upper Salmon Basin Watershed 

Project Administration / 

Implementation Support

Idaho Soil 

Conservation 

Commission and 

IOSC

Salmon Fundable in 

Part

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$285,364 $285,364 63

199303501 Enhance Fish, Riparian, and Wildlife 

Habitat Within the Red River 

Watershed

Idaho County 

Soil and Water 

Conservation 

District

Clearwater Fundable in 

Part

High Priority/

Recommended 

Action

Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$561,000 $561,000 101

199501300 Resident Fish Substitution Program Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater Fundable in 

Part

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$243,355 $243,355 103

199703000 Chinook Salmon Adult Abundance 

Monitoring

Nez Perce 

Tribe/Pacific 

Northwest 

National 

Laboratory

Salmon Fundable in 

Part 

(consider 

with 27019, 

28052)

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$1,033,000 $1,033,000 33

199703800 Preserve Salmonid Gametes and 

Establish a Regional Salmonid 

Germplasm Repository

Nez Perce Tribe Salmon Fundable in 

Part

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$1,279,000 $1,279,000 41

199901900 Holistic Restoration of the 

Twelvemile Reach of the Salmon 

River near Challis, Idaho

Custer Soil & 

Water 

Conservation 

District / IOSC

Salmon Fundable in 

Part

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$1,844,000 $1,844,000 67

199902000 Analyze the Persistence and Spatial 

Dynamics of Snake River Chinook 

Salmon

USDA Forest 

Service- Rocky 

Mountain 

Research Station

Salmon Fundable in 

Part

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$112,410 $215,194 51

Total ISRP Fundable in Part - CBFWA High Priority $22,401,736 $22,394,069
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

Mountain Snake: Table of Proposals Sorted by ISRP Recommendation, ISRP Comparison with CBFWA Recommendation, and Project ID 171

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin

ISRP Final 

Rec. CBFWA Category

ISRP 

Comparison 

w/CBFWA

FY02 

sponsor 

request

FY02 

CBFWA rec. Page

28003 Characterize and Assess WildlifeHabitat Types and Structural 

Conditions for Subbasins within the 

Mountain Snake Province

Northwest 

Habitat Institute

Salmon Fundable in 

Part

Recommended 

Action

Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$375,935 $375,935 16

28029 Restore Lawyer Creek Habitat 

Targeting Steelhead and Chinook 

Salmon

Clearwater 

Economic 

Development 

Association

Clearwater Fundable in 

Part

Recommended 

Action

Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$342,750 $342,750 85

28046 Impacts of Salmon Carcasses on 

Chinook Salmon and Watershed 

Restoration in Subbasins of the 

Clearwater River

Nez Perce Tribe 

Fisheries and 

Watershed

Clearwater Fundable in 

Part

Recommended 

Action

Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$179,002 $179,002 95

28026 Develop HGMP’s for LSRCP 

Programs to address artificial 

production reforms identified in the 

FCRPS Biological Opinion and other 

regional processes.

US Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 

Lower Snake 

River 

Compensation 

Plan

Salmon NA High Priority NA $856,292 $856,292 40

28061 Safety-Net Artificial Production Program 

(SNAPP)

Not 

Reviewed

High Priority NA $523,000 34

199204000 Redfish Lake Sockeye Salmon 

Captive Broodstock Rearing and 

Research

National Marine 

Fisheries Service

Salmon NA High Priority NA $1,600,000 $1,600,000 60

28030 Salmon River Native Resident Fish 

Assessment

IDFG - IOSC Salmon Not 

Fundable

High Priority (Obj 

1)Recommended 

Action (all else)

Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$250,000 $250,000 28
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

Mountain Snake: Table of Proposals Sorted by ISRP Recommendation, ISRP Comparison with CBFWA Recommendation, and Project ID 172

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin

ISRP Final 

Rec. CBFWA Category

ISRP 

Comparison 

w/CBFWA

FY02 

sponsor 

request

FY02 

CBFWA rec. Page

28032 Assessment of A-Run Steelhead 

Populations in the Clearwater River 

Basin

Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater Not 

Fundable

High Priority Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$686,800 $686,800 87

28033 Monitoring and evaluating coho 

salmon reintroduction in the 

Clearwater River Basin

Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater Not 

Fundable

High Priority/ 

Recommended 

Action

Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$676,752 $240,000 88

28037 Holistic Restoration of Critical 

Habitat on Non-federal Lands in the 

Lemhi Watershed, Idaho

Lemhi Soil & 

Water 

Conservation 

District / IOSC

Salmon Not 

Fundable

High Priority Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$3,238,682 $3,238,682 67

28038 Holistic Restoration of Critical 

Habitat on Non-federal Lands, East 

Fork Salmon Watershed, Idaho

Custer Soil & 

Water 

Conservation 

District / IOSC

Salmon Not 

Fundable

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$2,608,084 $2,608,084 65

28039 Holistic Restoration of Habitat on 

Non-federal Lands, Middle SalmonPanther Watershed, Idaho

Lemhi Soil & 

Water 

Conservation 

District / IOSC

Salmon Not 

Fundable

High Priority Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$1,863,326 $1,863,326 66

28040 Holistic Restoration of Critical 

Habitat on Non-federal Lands, Upper 

Salmon Watershed, Idaho

Custer Soil & 

Water 

Conservation 

District / IOSC

Salmon Not 

Fundable

High Priority Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$2,567,545 $2,567,545 66

28051 Assess and Monitor Steelhead in the 

Middle Fork Salmon River Subbasin

Nez Perce Tribe Salmon Not 

Fundable

High Priority Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$416,147 $416,147 55

198740700 Dworshak Integrated Rule 

Curves/M&E

Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater Not 

Fundable

High Priority Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$201,291 $201,291 101
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

Mountain Snake: Table of Proposals Sorted by ISRP Recommendation, ISRP Comparison with CBFWA Recommendation, and Project ID 173

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin

ISRP Final 

Rec. CBFWA Category

ISRP 

Comparison 

w/CBFWA

FY02 

sponsor 

request

FY02 

CBFWA rec. Page

198909800 Idaho Supplementation Studies IDFG - IOSC Salmon Not 

Fundable

High Priority Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$996,726 $996,726 45

198909801 Evaluate Supplementation Studies in 

Idaho Rivers (ISS)

USFWS - Idaho 

Fishery Resource 

Office

Clearwater Not 

Fundable

High Priority Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$126,320 $126,320 46

198909802 Evaluate Salmon Supplementation 

Studies in Idaho Rivers- Nez Perce 

Tribe

Nez Perce Tribe Salmon Not 

Fundable

High Priority Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$676,476 $676,476 46

198909803 Salmon Supplementation Studies in 

Idaho- Shoshone-Bannock Tribes

ShoshoneBannock TribesSalmon Not 

Fundable

High Priority Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$213,569 $213,569 46

199005500 Steelhead Supplementation Studies in 

Idaho Rivers

IDFG - IOSC Clearwater Not 

Fundable

High Priority Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$686,307 $686,307 47

199604300 Johnson Creek Artificial Propagation 

Enhancement Project

Nez Perce Tribe Salmon Not 

Fundable

High Priority Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$4,410,100 $4,410,100 47

199901500 Restoring Anadromous Fish Habitat 

in Big Canyon Watershed

Nez Perce Soil 

and Water 

Conservation 

District

Clearwater Not 

Fundable

High Priority Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$193,452 $203,452 109

199901600 Protect and Restore Big Canyon 

Creek Watershed

Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater Not 

Fundable

High Priority Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$355,000 $355,000 110
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

Mountain Snake: Table of Proposals Sorted by ISRP Recommendation, ISRP Comparison with CBFWA Recommendation, and Project ID 174

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin

ISRP Final 

Rec. CBFWA Category

ISRP 

Comparison 

w/CBFWA

FY02 

sponsor 

request

FY02 

CBFWA rec. Page

28002 Fluvial Bull Trout Migration and Life 

History Investigations in the upper 

Salmon River Subbasin

ShoshoneBannock TribesSalmon Not 

Fundable

Recommended 

Action

Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$163,440 $163,440 27

28004 Lawyer Creek SubwatershedSteelhead Trout Habitat Improvement 

Project

Lewis Soil 

Conservation 

District

Clearwater Not 

Fundable

Recommended 

Action

Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$246,500 $246,500 80

28005 Assessment of spring/summer 

chinook salmon habitat within the 

Salmon River Subbasin.

USDA Forest 

Service, BLM, 

USGS, Utah 

State University

Salmon Not 

Fundable

Recommended 

Action

Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$395,000 $115,750 31

28009 Smolt Condition and Adult Returns: 

An Indirect Method of Assessing the 

Potential Mitigation Benefits of 

Nutrient Enhancement Projects

IDFG - IOSC Salmon Not 

Fundable

Recommended 

Action

Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$44,600 $44,600 56

28011 Incidental Mortality in Selective 

Sport Fisheries

IDFG - IOSC Salmon Not 

Fundable

Recommended 

Action

Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$200,000 $200,000 57

28017 Monitoring the Selway Falls 

renovation project for passage of 

spring chinook salmon and steelhead

Pacific 

Northwest 

National 

Laboratory

Clearwater Not 

Fundable

Recommended 

Action

Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$134,350 $134,350 81

28019 Improve Stream Habitat by Reducing 

Discharge from Animal Feeding 

Operations 

Idaho 

Department of 

Environmental 

Quality - IOSC

Salmon Not 

Fundable

Recommended 

Action

Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$2,026,000 $2,026,000 77
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

Mountain Snake: Table of Proposals Sorted by ISRP Recommendation, ISRP Comparison with CBFWA Recommendation, and Project ID 175

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin

ISRP Final 

Rec. CBFWA Category

ISRP 

Comparison 

w/CBFWA

FY02 

sponsor 

request

FY02 

CBFWA rec. Page

28041 Dworshak Zooplankton Entrainment Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater Not 

Fundable

Recommended 

Action

Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$434,463 $434,463 89

28042 Timing and location of spawning by 

pure and introgressed cutthroat trout 

in the North Fork Clearwater River

Nez Perce Tribe Clearwater Not 

Fundable

Recommended 

Action

Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$311,878 $311,878 91

28044 Protect and Restore Deer Creek 

Watershed

Nez Perce Tribe 

Fisheries/Waters

hed

Salmon Not

Fundable

Recommended 

Action

Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$155,213 $155,213 71

28035 Geomorphic Controls on Watershedscale Availability of Chinook Salmon 

Spawning Habitat in the Salmon 

River 

University of 

Idaho, USDA 

Forest Service 

Rocky Mountain 

Research Station

Salmon Not 

Fundable

Do not fund as 

stand alone project. 

See project 

199902000.

Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$133,625 $0 53

28012 Four-Step Planning to Identify 

Safety-Net Projects for Idaho 

Steelhead

IDFG - IOSC Salmon Not 

Fundable

Withdrawn, defer 

to SNAPP proposal

NA - Not 

Fundable

$206,200 $0 38

28015 Benefit/Risk Analysis to Promote 

Long-Term Persistence of Chinook 

Salmon in the Middle Fork Salmon 

River

Nez Perce Tribe Salmon Not 

Fundable

Withdrawn, defer 

to SNAPP proposal

NA - Not 

Fundable

$156,726 $156,726 38

28054 Evaluation of Pisces Fish Protective 

Guidance and Monitoring System

Balaton Power, 

Inc.

Salmon Not 

Fundable

Defer to Upper 

Snake Province

NA - Not 

Fundable

$1,060,000 $0 57
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

Mountain Snake: Table of Proposals Sorted by ISRP Recommendation, ISRP Comparison with CBFWA Recommendation, and Project ID 176

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin

ISRP Final 

Rec. CBFWA Category

ISRP 

Comparison 

w/CBFWA

FY02 

sponsor 

request

FY02 

CBFWA rec. Page

28055 Four-Step Safety-Net Plan for Upper 

Lochsa River B-Run Steelhead

Columbia River 

Inter-Tribal Fish 

Commission

Clearwater Not 

Fundable

Withdrawn, defer 

to SNAPP proposal

NA - Not 

Fundable

$73,422 $0 39

28056 Four-Step Safety-Net Plan for South 

Fork Salmon River B-Run Steelhead

Columbia River 

Inter-Tribal Fish 

Commission

Salmon Not 

Fundable

Withdrawn, defer 

to SNAPP proposal

NA - Not 

Fundable

$73,422 $0 38

28057 Four-Step Safety-Net Plan for Lower 

Salmon River A-Run Steelhead

Columbia River 

Inter-Tribal Fish 

Commission

Salmon Not 

Fundable

Withdrawn, defer 

to SNAPP proposal

NA - Not 

Fundable

$73,422 $0 37

28014 Bull trout population assessment and 

life history characteristics in 

association with habitat quality and 

land use: template for recovery 

planning.

Utah Cooperative 

Fish and Wildlife 

Research Unit, 

USGS

Salmon Withdrawn -

See 27017

Withdrawn Withdrawn -

See 27017

$469,792 $469,792 NA
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

Blue Mountain: Table of Proposals Sorted by ISRP Recommendation, ISRP Comparison with CBFWA Recommendation, and Project ID 177

Blue Mountain

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin

ISRP Final 

Rec.

CBFWA 

Category

ISRP 

Comparison 

w/CBFWA

FY02 

sponsor 

request

FY02 

CBFWA 

rec. Page

27001 Asotin County Riparian Buffer and 

Couse and Tenmile Creeks Protection 

and Implementation Project

Asotin County CD Asotin Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$294,200 $294,200 117

27002 Assess Salmonids in the Asotin Creek 

Watershed

WDFW Asotin Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$316,885 $316,885 119

27014 Protect and Restore the Asotin Creek 

Watershed

Nez Perce Tribe Asotin Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$121,000 $121,000 118

27018 Oregon Plan Blue Mountain Province 

Fish Screening/Fish Passage.

Oregon 

Department of 

Fish and Wildlife

Grande 

Ronde

Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$153,314 $153,314 146

27021 Adult Steelhead Status Monitoring -

Imnaha River Subbasin

Nez Perce Tribe Imnaha Fundable 

(high priority) 

High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$1,055,449 $1,055,449 129

27022 Wallowa County Culvert Inventory Nez Perce Tribe Grande 

Ronde

Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$170,603 $170,603 147

27025 Acquire South Fork Asotin Creek 

Property

Rocky Mountain 

Elk Foundation

Asotin Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$3,489,500 $3,489,500 120
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

Blue Mountain: Table of Proposals Sorted by ISRP Recommendation, ISRP Comparison with CBFWA Recommendation, and Project ID 178

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin

ISRP Final 

Rec.

CBFWA 

Category

ISRP 

Comparison 

w/CBFWA

FY02 

sponsor 

request

FY02 

CBFWA 

rec. Page

198402500 Grande Ronde Basin Fish Habitat 

Enhancement Project

ODFW Grande 

Ronde

Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$456,416 $456,416 134

198805301 Northeast Oregon Hatchery Master 

Plan

Nez Perce Tribe Grande 

Ronde

Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$2,714,740 $2,714,740 155

198805305 Northeast Oregon Hatcheries 

Implementation (ODFW)

Oregon 

Department of 

Fish and Wildlife

Grande 

Ronde

Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$79,376 $79,376 158

199202601 Implement the Grande Ronde Model 

Watershed Program Administration 

and Habitat Restoration Projects

Grande Ronde 

Model Watershed 

Program

Grande 

Ronde

Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$1,376,000 $1,376,000 136

199401805 Continued Coordination and 

Implementation of Asotin Creek 

Watershed Projects

Asotin County 

Conservation 

District

Asotin Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$297,285 $297,285 116

199405402 199405400 - Characterize the 

Migratory Patterns, Population 

Structure, Food Habits, Abundance of 

Bull Trout from Subbasins in the Blue 

Mountain Province.

Oregon 

Department of 

Fish and Wildlife

Grande 

Ronde

Fundable (med 

priority)

High Priority Agree -

Fundable 

(Medium 

Priority)

$670,804 $402,611 20

199608300 CTUIR Grande Ronde Subbasin 

Restoration

Confederated 

Tribes Umatilla 

Indian Reservation

Grande 

Ronde

Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$200,000 $200,000 139
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

Blue Mountain: Table of Proposals Sorted by ISRP Recommendation, ISRP Comparison with CBFWA Recommendation, and Project ID 179

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin

ISRP Final 

Rec.

CBFWA 

Category

ISRP 

Comparison 

w/CBFWA

FY02 

sponsor 

request

FY02 

CBFWA 

rec. Page

199700900 Evaluate Potential Means of 

Rebuilding Sturgeon Populations in 

the Snake River Between Lower 

Granite and Hells Canyon Dams

Nez Perce Tribe Snake 

Hells 

Canyon

Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$290,510 $290,510 121

199701501 Imnaha Smolt Survival and Smolt to 

Adult Return Rate Quantification

Nez Perce Tribe Imnaha Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$466,802 $466,802 128

199800702 Grande Ronde Supplementation: 

Lostine River O&M and M&E

Nez Perce Tribe Grande 

Ronde

Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$609,302 $609,302 159

199800703 Facility O&M And Program M&E For 

Grande Ronde Spring Chinook 

Salmon and Summer Steelhead

Confederated 

Tribes of the 

Umatilla Indian 

Reservation

Grande 

Ronde

Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$702,010 $683,398 160

199800704 Northeast Oregon Hatcheries 

Implementation (ODFW)

Oregon 

Department of 

Fish and Wildlife

Grande 

Ronde

Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$206,048 $206,048 158

199801001 Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook 

Captive Broodstock Program

Oregon 

Department of 

Fish and Wildlife

Grande 

Ronde

Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$739,096 $739,096 160

199801003 Spawning distribution of Snake River 

fall chinook salmon

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service

Snake 

Hells 

Canyon

Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$174,162 $174,162 124

199801005 Pittsburg Landing (199801005),Capt. 

John Rapids (199801007), Big 

Canyon (199801008) Fall Chinook 

Acclimation Facilities

Nez Perce Tribe Snake 

Hells 

Canyon

Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$722,000 $722,000 126
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

Blue Mountain: Table of Proposals Sorted by ISRP Recommendation, ISRP Comparison with CBFWA Recommendation, and Project ID 180

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin

ISRP Final 

Rec.

CBFWA 

Category

ISRP 

Comparison 

w/CBFWA

FY02 

sponsor 

request

FY02 

CBFWA 

rec. Page

199801006 Captive Broodstock Artificial 

Propagation

Nez Perce Tribe Grande 

Ronde

Fundable High Priority Agree -

Fundable

$170,177 $170,177 163

Total Consensus ISRP Fundable and CBFWA High Priority $15,475,679 $15,188,874

27016 Evaluate the effects of hyporheic 

discharge on egg pocket water 

temperture in Snake River fall 

chinook salmon spawning areas

Pacific Northwest 

National 

Laboratory

Snake 

Hells 

Canyon

Fundable 

(high priority) 

Recommended 

Action

Disagree -

Fundable at 

High 

Priority

$154,136 $154,136 127

27008 Grande Ronde River Riparian 

Restoration

BLM Grande 

Ronde

Fundable 

(Low Priority)

Recommended 

Action

Agree -

Fundable 

(Low 

Priority)

$307,730 $307,730 142

27009 SSHIAP - Blue Mountain Province WDFW Asotin Fundable Recommended 

Action

Agree -

Fundable

$200,000 $200,000 119

27020 Grande Ronde Subbasin Water Right 

Acquisition Program

Oregon Water 

Trust

Grande 

Ronde

Fundable Recommended 

Action

Agree -

Fundable

$62,620 $62,620 134

27023 Precious Lands Wildlife Habitat 

Expansion

Nez Perce Tribe Grande 

Ronde

Fundable Recommended 

Action

Agree -

Fundable

$3,373,974 $3,373,974 131
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

Blue Mountain: Table of Proposals Sorted by ISRP Recommendation, ISRP Comparison with CBFWA Recommendation, and Project ID 181

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin

ISRP Final 

Rec.

CBFWA 

Category

ISRP 

Comparison 

w/CBFWA

FY02 

sponsor 

request

FY02 

CBFWA 

rec. Page

27017 Bull trout population assessment and 

life history characteristics in 

association with habitat quality and 

land use: template for recovery 

planning.

Utah Cooperative 

Fish and Wildlife 

Research Unit, 

USGS

Imnaha Fundable in 

Part

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$469,792 $469,792 22

27019 Adult Salmon Abundance Monitoring NPT/Pacific 

Northwest 

National 

Laboratory

Grande 

Ronde

Fundable in 

Part (consider 

with 

19970300, 

28052)

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$531,182 $531,182 34

199202604 Investigate Life History of Spring 

Chinook Salmon and Summer 

Steelhead in the Grande Ronde River 

Basin and Monitor Salmonid 

Populations and Habitat

Oregon 

Department of 

Fish and Wildlife

Grande 

Ronde

Fundable in 

Part

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$1,412,651 $1,382,766 148

199608000 NE Oregon Wildlife Mitigation 

Project -- "Precious Lands"

Nez Perce Tribe Grande 

Ronde

Fundable in 

Part

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$439,803 $439,803 130

200002100 Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites -

Oregon, Ladd Marsh WMA Additions

Oregon 

Department of 

Fish and Wildlife

Grande 

Ronde

Fundable in 

Part

High Priority Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$193,185 $193,185 133

Total - ISRP Fundable in Part, CBFWA High Priority $3,046,613 $3,016,728

27003 Characterize and Assess WildlifeHabitat Types and Structural 

Conditions for Subbasins within the 

Blue Mountain Province

Northwest Habitat 

Institute

Grande 

Ronde

Fundable in 

Part

Recommended 

Action

Disagree -

Fundable in 

Part

$201,175 $201,175 16
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

Blue Mountain: Table of Proposals Sorted by ISRP Recommendation, ISRP Comparison with CBFWA Recommendation, and Project ID 182

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin

ISRP Final 

Rec.

CBFWA 

Category

ISRP 

Comparison 

w/CBFWA

FY02 

sponsor 

request

FY02 

CBFWA 

rec. Page

27011 Lookingglass Creek land purchase for 

watershed protection (spawning and 

rearing habitat continuity and water 

quality at Lookingglass Hatchery).

Confederated 

Tribes of the 

Umatilla Indian 

Reservation

Grande 

Ronde

Not Fundable High Priority Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$2,263,400 $2,263,400 143

27026 199202604b - Wallowa Lake Study ODFW Grande 

Ronde

Not Fundable High Priority Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$132,444 149

199403900 Watershed Restoration Planner Nez Perce Tribe Grande 

Ronde

Not Fundable High Priority Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$64,289 $64,289 137

199702500 Implement The Wallowa County/Nez 

Perce Tribe Salmon Habitat Recovery 

Plan

Nez Perce Tribe Grande 

Ronde

Not Fundable High Priority Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$45,675 $45,675 138

199801004 Monitor and EvaluateYearling Snake 

River Fall Chinook Released 

Upstream Of Lower Granite Dam

Nez Perce Tribe Snake 

Hells 

Canyon

Not Fundable High Priority Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$330,241 $330,241 125

27010 Snake River Hells Canyon Tributary 

Enhancements

Idaho Department 

of Fish and Game

Snake 

Hells 

Canyon

Not Fundable Recommended 

Action

Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$101,000 $101,000 128

27012 Restore and Enhance Grande Ronde 

Valley Deciduous Riparian Habitat

Oregon 

Department Fish 

and Wildlife

Grande 

Ronde

Not Fundable Recommended 

Action

Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$156,000 $156,000 140
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

Blue Mountain: Table of Proposals Sorted by ISRP Recommendation, ISRP Comparison with CBFWA Recommendation, and Project ID 183

Project ID Title Sponsor Subbasin

ISRP Final 

Rec.

CBFWA 

Category

ISRP 

Comparison 

w/CBFWA

FY02 

sponsor 

request

FY02 

CBFWA 

rec. Page

27013 Grande Ronde River Stream 

Restoration - La Grande, Oregon

Union County and 

Union Soil and 

Water 

Conservation 

District

Grande 

Ronde

Not Fundable Recommended 

Action

Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$816,080 $816,080 141

27015 Develop Long-Term Management 

Plan for Snake River (Hells Canyon 

Reach) White Sturgeon

IDFG - IOSC Snake 

Hells 

Canyon

Not Fundable Recommended 

Action

Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$116,500 $116,500 123

27024 Life history strategies in 

Oncorhynchus mykiss: interactions 

between anadromous and resident 

forms.

Oregon 

Department of 

Fish and Wildlife

Grande 

Ronde

Not Fundable Recommended 

Action

Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$237,474 $237,474 151

27004 Grande Ronde and Imnaha Stream 

Channel Complexity and Fish Passage 

Barrier Inventory, Prioritization and 

Remediation

Oregon Watershed 

Enhancement 

Board

Grande 

Ronde

Not Fundable Do Not Fund Agree - Not 

Fundable

$191,580 $191,580 145

27005 Increase CREP Enrollment and 

Enhance Riparian Protections in the 

Grande Ronde and Imnaha basins

Oregon Watershed 

Enhancement 

Board

Grande 

Ronde

Not Fundable Do Not Fund Agree - Not 

Fundable

$170,880 $170,880 144

27006 Establishing Baseline Key Ecological 

Functions of Fish and Wildlife for 

Subbasin Planning

Northwest Habitat 

Institute & 

WDFW

Grande 

Ronde

Not Fundable Do Not Fund Agree - Not 

Fundable

$153,500 $153,500 18

27007 Assessment of spring/summer chinook 

salmon habitat within the Grande 

Ronde Subbasin.

USDA Forest 

Service, BLM, 

USGS, Utah State 

University

Grande 

Ronde

Not Fundable *Merged with 

Mountain Snake 

project 28005

Disagree -

Not 

Fundable

$205,000 $0 31

________________________________________
ISRP 2001-12A Final Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Review

Blue Mountain: Table of Proposals Sorted by ISRP Recommendation, ISRP Comparison with CBFWA Recommendation, and Project ID 184

w:\em\ww\isrp\1 final isrp reports\isrp 2001-12a final blue mt snake.doc