Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1989-024-01 - Evaluate Umatilla Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1989-024-01 - Evaluate Umatilla Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration
Project Number:
1989-024-01
Title:
Evaluate Umatilla Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration
Summary:
.This project originally began in 1994 as the Umatilla Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival Project (1989-024-01); following initial studies beginning in 1989 that evaluated the passage of juvenile fish at irrigation diversion facilities [Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Bypass Facilities and Passage at Water Diversions on the Lower Umatilla River]. The project was requested by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) based on both a local and regional high priority need for information on life history characteristics, survival, and success of hatchery- and naturally-reared salmon and steelhead in the Umatilla River (Boyce 1986; CTUIR and ODFW 1989; NPPC 1994). The project provided co-managers with annual estimates of smolt abundance, migration timing and survival, life history characteristics and productivity status and trends for all anadromous salmonid species in the Umatilla River basin. Project objectives were primarily accomplished through trapping and tagging juvenile outmigrants on the lower river. The project coordinated with ODFW’s Umatilla Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation Project (1990-005-00) and CTUIR’s Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project (1990-005-01) to provide managers with information in support of the Umatilla River Fisheries Restoration Program (CTUIR and ODFW 2004). At the request of the ISRP, the three projects produced the "Comprehensive Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation Plan for Umatilla Subbasin Summer Steelhead and Chinook Salmon" (Schwartz and Cameron 2006) to guide future RME in the Umatilla Subbasin. However, funding for the Outmigration and Survival Project was eliminated in 2007.

In 2006 the ISRP expressed the need for a complete Umatilla Program review to help the panel understand the complexity and relationships among the Umatilla River Fisheries Restoration Program's projects. This review was completed in 2007, and included an ISRP site visit on May 16-17, 2007, and presentations made to the panel by ODFW and CTUIR personnel. In their review (ISRP 2007b), the panel noted that "…the biological effectiveness of habitat restoration is not being adequately evaluated. Habitat restoration effectiveness monitoring and evaluation within the Umatilla is needed." Panel comments were positive regarding the Juvenile Outmigration and Survival Project, and recognized that the information this project provided was essential to establishing benefits from habitat enhancement. In 2009, the Outmigration and Survival Project was restarted, but with a narrowed focus that only included ESA-listed Umatilla River steelhead.

This project proposal is to continue ongoing activities of the Umatilla Juvenile Outmigration and Survival Project. We also propose additional activities, integrated with the goals of existing Umatilla M&E projects, to intensively monitor the response of the natural steelhead population to watershed-scale habitat restoration. This portion of the project will provide statistically valid estimates of steelhead population viability parameters and rigorous assessments of temporal habitat changes at multiple spatial scales. Finally, in 2008 Umatilla co-managers implemented HSRG recommend hatchery reform strategies (HSRG 2004) that are aimed at establishing locally-adapted natural spring and fall Chinook salmon populations. Therefore, we also propose to expand the scope of smolt monitoring activities to once again include all anadroumous salmonid species.

Specifically, we propose to 1) operate PIT tag detection system at Three Mile Falls Dam to monitor movement; 2) operate smolt traps to estimate smolt abundance and mark smolts for survival and migration characteristics assessment; 3) conduct spawning surveys to determine spawner distribution; 4) conduct juvenile fish surveys to determine rearing distribution and density; 5) conduct habitat surveys to characterize the quantity, quality, and distribution of steelhead habitat in the Umatilla River Subbasin. Data analyses will integrate life stage specific survival and life history information to derive and assess the key performance metrics.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
1990
Ending FY:
2018
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Plateau Umatilla 100.00%
Purpose:
Artificial Production
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
All Anadromous Fish
All Anadromous Salmonids
Bass, Largemouth
Bass, Smallmouth
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Freshwater Mussels
Lamprey, Pacific
Lamprey, Western Brook
OBSOLETE-Carp, Common
OBSOLETE-Catfish
OBSOLETE-Crappie, Black
OBSOLETE-Crappie, White
OBSOLETE-Perch, Yellow
OBSOLETE-Pikeminnow, Northern
OBSOLETE-Walleye
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS (threatened)
Sturgeon, White - All Populations except Kootenai R. DPS
Trout, Bull (threatened)
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

Map of the Pacific Northwest, the Umatilla River basin and sampling locations.

Figure Name: Figure 1

Document ID: P123085

Document: Evaluation of Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin

Page Number: 10

Project: 1989-024-01

Contract: 50567


Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2016 (Previous) $533,850 $533,850 $533,782 $533,782 $444,500

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $533,850 $533,782 $533,782 $444,500
FY2017 (Current) $533,850 $533,850 $533,826 $533,826 $525,198

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $533,850 $533,826 $533,826 $525,198
FY2018 (Next) $533,450 $533,450 $525,020 $525,020 $0

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $533,450 $525,020 $525,020 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Jul-2017

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2016 - FY2018)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2016 Expense $533,850 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY16 Initial Planning Budgets - Expense 05/22/2015
FY2017 Expense $533,850 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY17 SOY Budgets 06/02/2016
FY2018 Expense $533,450 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY18 SOY Budgets 07/17/2017

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Project Cost Share:

FY2016 1 %
FY2015 1 %
FY2014 1 %
FY2013 1 %
FY2012 1 %
FY2011 1 %
FY2010 9 %
FY2009 8 %
FY2008 10 %
FY2007 27 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution
FY2015 US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) $5,000
FY2016 US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) $5,000

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
BPA-004205 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Eval Umt Juv Outmig Active $5,415 10/1/2008 - 9/30/2009
BPA-004571 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Evaluate Umatilla Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration Active $5,286 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
BPA-005620 Bonneville Power Administration PIT tags- Eval Umatilla Juvenile Salmon Outmigration Active $5,163 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
BPA-006319 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags- Evaluate Umatilla Juvenile Outmigration Active $9,544 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
BPA-007015 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Evaluate Umatilla Juvenile Outmigration Active $2,805 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
BPA-007719 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Eval Umatilla Juvenile Outmigration Active $10,084 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
BPA-008421 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Eval Umatilla Juvenile Outmigration 15 Active $12,260 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
BPA-008901 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Eval Umatilla Juvenile Outmigration 16 Active $14,222 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
74267 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1989-024-01 EXP UMATILLA JUVENILE SALMONID OUTMIGRATION M&E 2017 Issued $525,020 11/1/2016 - 10/31/2017
BPA-009512 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Eval Umatilla Juvenile Outmigration Active $8,806 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):11
Completed:10
On time:10
Status Reports
Completed:61
On time:42
Avg Days Late:6

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
4340 20425, 24721, 39455, 45075, 50567, 55329, 59392, 63486, 67055, 70542, 74267 1989-024-01 EVALUATION UMATILLA RIVER BASIN ENHANCEMENT Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 04/2001 04/2001 Pending 61 126 10 0 5 141 96.45% 2
BPA-004205 PIT Tags - Eval Umt Juv Outmig Bonneville Power Administration 10/2008 10/2008 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-004571 PIT Tags - Evaluate Umatilla Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration Bonneville Power Administration 10/2009 10/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-005620 PIT tags- Eval Umatilla Juvenile Salmon Outmigration Bonneville Power Administration 10/2010 10/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006319 PIT Tags- Evaluate Umatilla Juvenile Outmigration Bonneville Power Administration 10/2011 10/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-007015 PIT Tags - Evaluate Umatilla Juvenile Outmigration Bonneville Power Administration 10/2012 10/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-007719 PIT Tags - Eval Umatilla Juvenile Outmigration Bonneville Power Administration 10/2013 10/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008421 PIT Tags - Eval Umatilla Juvenile Outmigration 15 Bonneville Power Administration 10/2014 10/2014 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008901 PIT Tags - Eval Umatilla Juvenile Outmigration 16 Bonneville Power Administration 10/2015 10/2015 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-009512 PIT Tags - Eval Umatilla Juvenile Outmigration Bonneville Power Administration 10/2016 10/2016 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 61 126 10 0 5 141 96.45% 2


Review: RME / AP Category Review

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 1989-024-01-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 1989-024-01
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1989-024-01
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Supports 2008 FCRPS BiOp
Comments: BiOp Workgroup Comments: No BiOp Workgroup Comments

The BiOp RM&E Workgroups made the following determinations regarding the proposal's ability or need to support BiOp Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) RPAs. If you have questions regarding these RPA association conclusions, please contact your BPA COTR and they will help clarify, or they will arrange further discussion with the appropriate RM&E Workgroup Leads. BiOp RPA associations for the proposed work are: ( 50.2 50.3 50.6 56.3 )
All Questionable RPA Associations ( ) and
All Deleted RPA Associations (50.1 50.8 56.1 56.2 72.1)
Proponent Response:

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1989-024-01-ISRP-20101015
Project: 1989-024-01 - Evaluate Umatilla Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1989-024-01
Completed Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The ISRP’s comments were addressed in a thoughtful, comprehensive manner. The response was thorough and gave frank consideration of issues raised by ISRP. The proponents provided detailed answers to ISRP questions and comments that clarified issues concerning the M&E program, especially the IMW project.

The proponents provided a reasonable justification for the design of the IMW project, which involves comparison between two treatment streams and a reference stream to assess effectiveness of habitat restoration in the treatment streams. Although the proponents argued that the treatment and reference streams were physiographically and biologically similar enough to provide valid results when compared, they were forthright and objective in discussing the limitations of the design, limitations that likely will be common to many future IMW projects.

Given the differences among the treatment and reference tributaries in many biological and physical habitat features, and past management actions, the strongest comparisons may be Before-After comparisons within tributaries in response to habitat restoration. Additional comparisons among tributaries that depend on similar "background" effects of supplementation can be made, but regression analysis using key covariates may be a more useful approach, as the proponents suggest.

One of the limitations of concern to the ISRP is the uncertainty of the degree of hatchery influence which could affect comparability of the treatment and reference streams. Another potential problem is that habitat restoration actions in the treatment streams have been ongoing for some time. The effects of these actions will continue beyond the initiation of the IMW project making it difficult to separate biological and habitat responses resulting from pre-treatment habitat enhancement actions from those occurring post-treatment, after project initiation. This residual effect of pre-treatment actions may complicate before-after comparisons. Finally, given the extent of habitat degradation in the treatment streams, will the proposed restoration actions in these streams, especially Meacham Creek, be great enough to produce a significant, detectable biological response? The proponents should consider how they will deal with these problems analytically or through modification of their design.
First Round ISRP Date: 10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:
This project proposes status and trend monitoring of ESA-listed Umatilla River steelhead and Chinook salmon, and collaboration in an Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW) project intended to evaluate the effectiveness of habitat restoration actions in two tributaries of the Umatilla. Work related to status and trends monitoring in Objectives 1-4 meets scientific criteria. A response is needed that expands, clarifies, and provides more detail concerning the IMW project and Objective 5. The study design needs more thorough explanation, and more background information on the reference and treatment streams needs to be provided. Comparative metrics and data analyses need further explanation.

Overall, this is a thorough proposal for continuation of a centrally important project in the Umatilla Basin. The investigators describe a highly integrated project to collect critical data on production and survival of wild steelhead and spring and fall Chinook salmon. This project could provide critical data to assess whether the habitat restoration projects in the Umatilla River basin are effective in increasing abundance, survival, and productivity of naturally-spawning steelhead and salmon. In addition, it provides key data to determine the success of the new integrated hatchery supplementation program, whereby separate groups of Conservation and Harvest smolts are produced. These data are necessary to determine if the integrated hatchery program is contributing to the recovery of steelhead and salmon, or just another factor leading to their demise (or no change is detected).

1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The project is consistent with many regional programs and projects including the NPPC Fish and Wildlife Program and the Umatilla/Willow Subbasin Plan. It addresses several RPAs in the BiOp. This work is of great significance to regional programs, because it provides critical data to assess how natural populations of steelhead and two life history types of Chinook are responding to a variety of conditions, including in-river habitat, flow, migration corridors, and ocean conditions. Without it, little will be known about the performance of the newly created Conservation groups of salmon and steelhead.

The proposal includes status and trends monitoring and a new Intensively Monitored Watershed project. The main goal of the Umatilla IMW project is to determine whether habitat enhancement results in higher abundance, survival, and productivity of natural spawned steelhead and salmon. A confusing aspect of the proposal is that several of the objectives and deliverables include work related to both status and trends monitoring as well as to the IMW habitat effectiveness evaluation. The objectives and deliverables for the status and trends work and those for the IMW work should be separated so that these two aspects of the project are clearly distinguishable. Several projects are addressing components of the IMW work, although this project seems to have the bulk of the responsibility for its conduct. Dividing the work among projects makes scientific evaluation of the IMW effort difficult. Why was the IMW work not consolidated in a single proposal?

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

This project has been ongoing in various forms since 1994, but underwent an extensive review in 2006 by the ISRP. It was restarted in 2009, after reformulating goals. This proposal is characterized by carefully planned sampling designs for the redd surveys and juvenile abundance in tributaries, and for habitat monitoring.

The project can point to various results that have allowed managers to make important decisions based on the data that was collected. Based upon the results presented, the project appears to have been productive and has accomplished it objectives since it inception in 1994. Data collected through this project are critical for monitoring salmon and steelhead populations in the basin.

A notable conclusion drawn from data analysis was that “habitat enhancement has not resulted in a significant improvement for summer steelhead and that the system may be at capacity for production of the species.” The negative relationship between smolts/female and number of females supports this conclusions and suggests that density-dependence may be affecting smolt survival. This conclusion is tentative but it argues for a more rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of habitat restoration actions in the Umatilla Basin, which the proponents propose to undertake.

In addressing adaptive management, the proponents indicate that the information they obtained has assisted with management decisions and provide some examples. They did not specifically address how their project has changed based on previous results. However, their decision to participate in CHaMP is indicative of their willingness to shift the direction of the project.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)

The proposed project is one of four collaborative BPA funded projects aimed at monitoring the status and trends of Chinook salmon and summer steelhead in the Umatilla River. The project is tied to several other BPA funded projects in the Umatilla Basin. It also relates to several other IMW projects in the Columbia Basin that are collaborating in the development and implementation of CHaMP. In particular, this project and another in-basin project (1990-050-01; Umatilla Basin Natural Production M&E) are cooperating in conducting the IMW habitat evaluation in the Umatilla. Some discussion of the new C & H / Integrated Segregated hatchery production scheme would have been helpful, but it seems that the proposed project, without explicitly discussing it, will deal with it effectively.

In addressing emerging factors the proponents make the general statement that the data collected by this project could assist in determination of fish population response to emerging threats but do not offer anything more specific. Climate change and predation by birds and native and non-native fish predators are key emerging limiting factors which are dealt with in other proposals. It will be important to determine how this project can link with those data, such as estimating loss of this DPS of steelhead from Caspian tern and cormorant predation at the mouth of the Columbia River.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

This proposal has components pertaining to both routine status and trend monitoring and evaluation of habitat effectiveness under the IMW program. Methods and metrics for assessing status and trends in Objectives 1-4 are fairly standard and are appropriate for this type of work.

The ISRP views positively the proponent’s willingness to engage in rigorous habitat effectiveness evaluation under the auspices of CHaMP and according to ISEMP protocols. Properly conducted, this evaluation could yield the most valuable information to date on effectiveness of habitat enhancement in the Umatilla Basin. Several issues, however, need clarification.

Several objectives and deliverables (e.g., deliverables 4, 6, 9, and 10) in the proposal apparently include work related to both status and trends monitoring and to the IMW habitat effectiveness evaluation, complicating scientific review of the proposal. It would be helpful if the objectives and deliverables for the status and trends work and those for the IMW work could be separated so that these two aspects of the project are clearly distinguishable.

The study design for the IMW project needs more thorough explanation, and more background information on the reference and treatment streams should be provided. The proposed approach for evaluation of the effectiveness of habitat enhancement actions is to compare a control or reference stream with each of two treatment streams that have undergone habitat enhancement. A main difficulty is that appropriate treatment and control streams are difficult to find. The Upper Umatilla, a reference stream, receives supplementation, whereas Meacham Creek, a treatment stream, has been subject to habitat restoration and also is supplemented. Steelhead use both tributaries for spawning and rearing. Therefore, a comparison between these tributaries should yield information on the effectiveness of the habitat projects in Meacham Creek, assuming there is no interaction between the habitat work and supplementation, and other physical and biological differences between the tributaries are negligible. In contrast, Birch Creek, another treatment stream, receives no supplementation but connectivity and fish passage has been restored. Since the Upper Umatilla is supplemented, it is not an adequate control stream to compare with Birch Creek, although trend monitoring (i.e., before-after) can be conducted to assess changes. How will this apparent problem be resolved?

The proponents need to deal with several other questions pertaining to the IMW project. How do the reference and treatment basins compare physiographically and biologically? The history of land use, habitat loss, and hatchery influence in reference and treatment tributaries should be summarized. What habitat restoration actions have been and will be implemented, and on what time frame? What is the fish distribution and abundance in these streams?

Comparative metrics and data analyses need further explanation. What metrics (fish and habitat) will be compared between treatment and reference basins to evaluate the effectiveness of habitat restoration actions? Will the proponents be responsible for collection of habitat and fish data, data integration, and data analysis? What data will be collected by other projects? An extremely large amount of data will be collected. How will it be analyzed? It should be possible to use model selection to assess how, for example, smolt production relates to habitat restoration, by fitting models with and without this covariate. ISEMP proposes a long list of habitat variables that can be measured. How will the decision be made as to which of these variables are most important for this work?
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1989-024-01-NPCC-20110124
Project: 1989-024-01 - Evaluate Umatilla Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-1989-024-01
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: Implement with condition through 2016: Implementation subject to regional hatchery effects evaluation process described in programmatic recommendation #4.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #4 Hatchery Effectiveness—subject to regional hatchery effects evaluation process
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1989-024-01-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1989-024-01
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 3 - Does not appear reasonable
Comment: RM&E regarding Umatilla species; fishery managers authorized/require; query whether cost share sufficient.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1989-024-01-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1989-024-01
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1989-024-01-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1989-024-01 - Evaluate Umatilla Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
This is a very thorough proposal with thorough methods that justify continuation. A history of the project to date was covered in detail in over ~ 20 pages. This project should assist in providing critical evaluation information to the set of Umatilla projects. And the ISRP encourages the proponent to publish results and observations in the formal fisheries literature. Monitoring and evaluation of smolt yields and survivals is the focus of the investigations. Some adaptive management is evident (e.g., steelhead releases moved to lower reaches), clearly indicating the benefits of this type of work.

The project should provide data on egg-to-smolt survival and/or smolts-per-spawner as a function of spawner density to augment the information provided in table 4 (p 33). This is the key response variable in monitoring population dynamics and towards evaluation of management actions.

There may also be a possibility, worth exploring, to collaborate with other tagging studies (e.g., POST), and to explore alternative methods for estimation of adults to relate smolt yields to spawner abundance more effectively.

See ISRP comments on the "Umatilla Initiative" under proposal 198343600.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1989-024-01-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1989-024-01 - Evaluate Umatilla Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Do Not Fund
Comments:

Project Relationships: This project Merged To 1990-005-00 effective on 4/26/2007
Relationship Description: Core Hatchery monitoring (ongoing tasks for Umatilla and mainstem PIT tagging of hatchery fish) that used to be covered under project 1989-024-01 ($81,928) was added for 1-year only. Out years for ongoing Umatilla PIT tagging of hatchery fish is reduced, with the exception of increased cost sharing


Name Role Organization
Brian Jonasson Technical Contact Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Rosemary Mazaika Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Joshua Hanson Project Lead Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Richard (ODFW) Carmichael (Inactive) Supervisor Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Tracy Hauser Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Amy Mai Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Chad Hamel Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration