Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1998-007-03 - Grande Ronde Supplementation O&M on Catherine Creek/Upper Grande Ronde River Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1998-007-03 - Grande Ronde Supplementation O&M on Catherine Creek/Upper Grande Ronde River
Project Number:
1998-007-03
Title:
Grande Ronde Supplementation O&M on Catherine Creek/Upper Grande Ronde River
Summary:
I. Project Goal

To preserve the genetic variability and enhance the population size of the depressed spring Chinook salmon populations in Catherine Creek and the Upper Grande Ronde River using a hatchery program based on the indigenous stock.

RPA 177: In 2002, BPA shall begin to implement and sustain NMFS-approved, safety-net projects.
Deliverables: All of the deliverables contained in this statement of work will apply to this RPA.

II. Background

The ceded lands and usual and accustomed fishing sites in northeast Oregon of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) include areas where fish and wildlife populations have been negatively affected by the construction and operation of mainstem Columbia and Snake River dams. CTUIR is seeking restoration of these populations.

The CTUIR, Nez Perce Tribe (NPT), and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) are cooperating in a Grande Ronde Endemic Spring Chinook Salmon Supplementation Program (GRESCSP) to increase natural production and eventually allow harvest of spring Chinook salmon in the Grande Ronde River basin. This integrated salmon program uses captive and conventional broodstock artificial propagation components in order to prevent extinction, supplement natural production and restore productive fisheries in currently underutilized habitat in the Grande Ronde River basin. A comprehensive plan developed by comanagers to more functionally combine and integrate the captive brood and conventional components of the program was completed in 1998. All aspects of the GRESCSP are fully integrated with the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP). Project activities are incorporated into the LSRCP/BPA Annual Operations Plan.

The GRESCSP is an extension of the LSRCP which has temporarily changed the emphasis of its spring Chinook programs from mitigation to conservation. Grande Ronde Basin tributaries currently being targeted for spring Chinook supplementation under LSRCP include the upper Grande Ronde River, Catherine Creek and the Lostine River. The primary focus of this project is the programs directed at Catherine Creek and the upper Grande Ronde River which lie within the ceded lands boundary of CTUIR.

The captive broodstock component of the program was initiated by NPT and ODFW in 1995 under initial funding from LSRCP. CTUIR became involved in the program in late 1996. Naturally-produced juvenile salmon are captured from three tributaries of the Grande Ronde River (Catherine Creek, upper Grande Ronde, and Lostine rivers) and then reared to maturity and spawned in captivity. Spawning of mature captive brood fish began in 1998. Final rearing of these captive broodstock progeny occurs at Lookingglass Hatchery. Smolts are then transferred back to their stream of origin for acclimation and release.

The conventional broodstock component of the program began in 1997 on the same three Grande Ronde tributaries. Naturally-produced adult spring Chinook salmon are captured at weirs on these tributaries and taken to Lookingglass Hatchery for spawning. CTUIR operates the adult collection weirs in the upper Grande Ronde River and Catherine Creek for population monitoring and collection of conventional broodstock. Due to low numbers of returning adults, no conventional broodstock were spawned from either Catherine Creek or the upper Grande Ronde River until 2001. As with the captive brood portion of the program, final rearing of the conventional progeny is expected to occur at Lookingglass Hatchery. Smolts will then be transferred back to their stream of origin for acclimation and release.

CTUIR operates juvenile acclimation facilities for spring Chinook salmon in the upper Grande Ronde River and Catherine Creek. The first juveniles produced from the program were1998 brood captive brood progeny which were acclimated and released in 2000. From 2000 to 2009 we have released 1,210,601 juvenile spring Chinook salmon into the Upper Grande Ronde River and 1,233,257 into Catherine Creek from our acclimation sites.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) (Tribe)
Starting FY:
1998
Ending FY:
2032
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Blue Mountain Grande Ronde 100.00%
Purpose:
Artificial Production
Emphasis:
Supplementation
Focal Species:
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU (threatened)
Steelhead - Snake River DPS (threatened)
Trout, Bull (threatened)
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

Catherine Creek acclimation facility.

Figure Name: Figure 2

Document ID: P125076

Document: Grande Ronde Satellite Facilities O and M

Page Number: 15

Project: 1998-007-03

Contract: 55731

Upper Grande Ronde acclimation facility.

Figure Name: Figure 3

Document ID: P125076

Document: Grande Ronde Satellite Facilities O and M

Page Number: 16

Project: 1998-007-03

Contract: 55731

Photo of the Catherine Creek adult broodstock collection facility.

Figure Name: Figure 4a

Document ID: P125076

Document: Grande Ronde Satellite Facilities O and M

Page Number: 20

Project: 1998-007-03

Contract: 55731

Photo of the Upper Grande Ronde adult broodstock collection facility.

Figure Name: Figure 4b

Document ID: P125076

Document: Grande Ronde Satellite Facilities O and M

Page Number: 20

Project: 1998-007-03

Contract: 55731

High flow event at Upper Grande Ronde adult collection facility 15 May 2011.

Figure Name: Appendix Table 21a

Document ID: P125076

Document: Grande Ronde Satellite Facilities O and M

Page Number: 66

Project: 1998-007-03

Contract: 55731

High flow event at Upper Grande Ronde adult collection facility 15 May 2011.

Figure Name: Appendix Table 21b

Document ID: P125076

Document: Grande Ronde Satellite Facilities O and M

Page Number: 66

Project: 1998-007-03

Contract: 55731

High flow event at Catherine Creek adult collection facility 15 May 2011.

Figure Name: Appendix Table 22a

Document ID: P125076

Document: Grande Ronde Satellite Facilities O and M

Page Number: 67

Project: 1998-007-03

Contract: 55731

High flow event at Catherine Creek adult collection facility 15 May 2011.

Figure Name: Appendix Table 22b

Document ID: P125076

Document: Grande Ronde Satellite Facilities O and M

Page Number: 67

Project: 1998-007-03

Contract: 55731


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 *
FY2017 (Previous) $608,094 $654,875 $654,875 $654,875 $575,296

Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla $654,875 $654,875 $654,875 $575,296
FY2018 (Current) $651,620 $651,620 $638,010 $638,010 $0

Post 2018 – Umatilla $627,912 $614,797 $614,797 $0
Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla $23,708 $23,213 $23,213 $0
FY2019 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla $0 $0 $0 $0
Post 2018 – Umatilla $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 30-Sep-2017

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2017 - FY2019)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2017 Expense $536,830 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Fish Accord Review 05/02/2008
FY2017 Expense $117,245 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Fish Accord project COLA 11/21/2008
FY2017 Expense $18,837 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Establish CTUIR FY12 Admin Budget (2012-010-00) 01/26/2012
FY2017 Expense $19,622 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Establish CTUIR FY13-17 Admin Budget (2012-010-00) 07/19/2012
FY2017 Expense $7,522 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Add funding to CTUIR FY17 Admin Budget (2012-010-00) 02/24/2016
FY2017 Expense $46,781 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Budget Transfers (CTUIR) 10/5/16 10/05/2016
FY2017 Expense $93,774 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Budget Transfers (CCT, CTUIR) 2/7/17 02/10/2017
FY2017 Expense $93,774 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Budget Transfers (CCT, CTUIR) 2/7/17 02/10/2017
FY2018 Expense $654,075 From: Post 2018 – Umatilla FY18 Initial Planning Budgets (WS, CTUIR, YN, CRITFC, CCT, ID) 2/10/2017 02/13/2017
FY2018 Expense $26,163 To: Post 2018 – Umatilla CTUIR Establish FY18 budget for 2012-010-00 Accord Administration 08/21/2017
FY2018 Expense $23,708 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Budget Transfers (CTUIR) 9/13/2017 09/13/2017

Pending Budget Decision?  No


No Project Cost Share

FY2017 0 %
FY2016 0 %
FY2015 0 %
FY2014 0 %
FY2013 0 %
FY2012 0 %
FY2011 0 %
FY2010 0 %
FY2009 0 %
FY2008 0 %
FY2007 0 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
25348 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 1998-007-03 GRANDE RONDE SATELLITE FACILITIES O&M History $458,134 1/1/2006 - 12/31/2006
25825 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 1998-007-03 EXP GRANDE RONDE SUPP'L M&E History $147,110 1/1/2006 - 12/31/2006
30615 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 1998-007-03 GRANDE RONDE SATELLITE FACILITIES O&M History $459,820 1/1/2007 - 12/31/2007
BPA-005575 Bonneville Power Administration TBL Task Order Active $526 10/1/2006 - 9/30/2007
73982 REL 1 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 1998-007-03 EXP GRANDE RONDE SUPPLEMENTATION O&M 2017 Issued $654,875 1/1/2017 - 12/31/2017



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):15
Completed:13
On time:13
Status Reports
Completed:55
On time:44
Avg Days Early:4

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
6509 12785, 25348, 25825, 30615, 36813, 40659, 45324, 51032, 55731, 60221, 64132, 67993, 71273, 73982 REL 1 1998-007-03 GRANDE RONDE SUPPLEMENTATION M&E O&M Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 01/2001 01/2001 Review 55 211 11 0 6 228 97.37% 0
BPA-005575 TBL Task Order Bonneville Power Administration 10/2006 10/2006 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 55 211 11 0 6 228 97.37% 0


Review: RME / AP Category Review

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-007-03-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 1998-007-03
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1998-007-03
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: (50.6)
All Questionable RPA Associations ( ) and
All Deleted RPA Associations ( )
Proponent Response:

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-007-03-ISRP-20101015
Project: 1998-007-03 - Grande Ronde Supplementation O&M on Catherine Creek/Upper Grande Ronde River
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1998-007-03
Completed Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
Qualification 1: The proponents should better describe their overall objectives for the fishery, not just operational, in-facility objectives.

Qualification 2: They should coordinate and integrate with CRHEET and show that they are implementing consistent protocols and metrics.

These qualifications can be addressed in contracting and discussed in progress reports and future proposals.

This project is intended to support a supplementation and captive broodstock program for spring Chinook in the Grande Ronde basin, in particular, the upper Grande Ronde River and Catherine Creek. It is related to several other projects in the Grande Ronde system and is consistent with the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan.

Included are an acclimation facility (for smolts prior to release) and an adult broodstock capture facility on each tributary. Broodstock are to be collected from local stocks in the Upper Grande Ronde and Catherine Creek. The project’s captive brood component is intended to minimize demographic risk of extinction, and its conventional hatchery production component is intended to balance the captive component and increase production while reducing the genetic risk of artificial selection. The stated objectives pertain straight-forwardly to fish production, but they should be accompanied by objectives that encompass the desired outcomes for the river system’s fish population abundance.

The sliding scale used for dealing with wild and hatchery adults in the operation is a particularly beneficial feature. In future review cycles, it would be helpful to show and discuss statistics indicating the degree of conformance to and progress in that scheme.

No specific methods or metrics were given. The ISRP assumes that standard hatchery practices will be employed. The proposal would have been improved, however, if more information were presented about the acclimation facility and procedures.

ISRP overall comments on the present proposal are similar to those of the previous ISRP 2007-2009 review. In that review it was stated that this project’s future proposals should summarize the quantitative results in tables or graphs, and should devote the project history narrative mainly to interpreting the biological significance of those results to date. The ISRP cannot see that this recommendation was followed.

Although this sizeable project has continued for over a decade, there does not seem to be a clear table or section of the report showing progress on the goals. The proponents do not show whether the supplemented stock is progressing toward the stage at which the program can be ended, as is the goal in supplementation. There also do not seem to be many meaningful reports resulting from this work. The project is summarized as routine fisheries work, but its fishery objectives should be stated and the results toward fulfilling them should be discussed. As the ISRP commented previously, “the desired outcome(s) should form the project’s biological objectives.” Once again, the proponents did not write this year’s proposal to remedy the problems with biological objectives.

The ISRP previously pointed out that the proposal should include the objective of terminating the project when M&E determines that supplementation either is not working or has been successful enough that the wild stock is recovered to the point that supplementation is no longer needed. The project is designed to provide emergency risk management of spring/summer Chinook in the subbasin and ultimately to recover self-sustaining populations if out-of-subbasin stressors are remedied. If those stressors are not remedied, the long-term viability of the spring/summer Chinook is uncertain. The ISRP commented in the previous review that a response was needed, in coordination with the other GRESCSP proposals, showing a decision tree detailing criteria for termination based on results, whether positive or negative.

The proposal lists annual fish production since 1997, but no quantitative results regarding the stock were reported and no management changes were shown. Therefore, meaningful accomplishments to date cannot be assessed on the basis of this proposal.

The Proponents state that: “The captive brood component was implemented to minimize the imminent demographic risk of extinction. The conventional component exists as a long-term strategy to balance the captive component and increase production while reducing the genetic risk of artificial selection. The GRESCSP has produced substantial adult spring Chinook returns to the target tributaries beginning in 2002. As returns increase, reliance on the captive component will diminish and as the demographic risk of extinction decreases, we will increase the conventional component until the captive brood component is expected to be phased out.” This paragraph would have much more meaning if data were presented to show how substantial those returns have been, how far along toward objectives those returns are, and, at the current rate of progress, when the existing captive brood program would be phased out. These data and projections do not seem to exist in the proposal. To include and discuss them could provide a useful description of success and status related to objectives. The ISRP requests that this be done in the next proposal.
First Round ISRP Date: 10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:
Qualification 1: The proponents should better describe their overall objectives for the fishery, not just operational, in-facility objectives.

Qualification 2: They should coordinate and integrate with CRHEET and show that they are implementing consistent protocols and metrics.

These qualifications can be addressed in contracting and discussed in progress reports and future proposals.

This project is intended to support a supplementation and captive broodstock program for spring Chinook in the Grande Ronde basin, in particular, the upper Grande Ronde River and Catherine Creek. It is related to several other projects in the Grande Ronde system and is consistent with the Lower Snake River Compensation Plan.

Included are an acclimation facility (for smolts prior to release) and an adult broodstock capture facility on each tributary. Broodstock are to be collected from local stocks in the Upper Grande Ronde and Catherine Creek. The project’s captive brood component is intended to minimize demographic risk of extinction, and its conventional hatchery production component is intended to balance the captive component and increase production while reducing the genetic risk of artificial selection. The stated objectives pertain straight-forwardly to fish production, but they should be accompanied by objectives that encompass the desired outcomes for the river system’s fish population abundance.

The sliding scale used for dealing with wild and hatchery adults in the operation is a particularly beneficial feature. In future review cycles, it would be helpful to show and discuss statistics indicating the degree of conformance to and progress in that scheme.

No specific methods or metrics were given. The ISRP assumes that standard hatchery practices will be employed. The proposal would have been improved, however, if more information were presented about the acclimation facility and procedures.

ISRP overall comments on the present proposal are similar to those of the previous ISRP 2007-2009 review. In that review it was stated that this project’s future proposals should summarize the quantitative results in tables or graphs, and should devote the project history narrative mainly to interpreting the biological significance of those results to date. The ISRP cannot see that this recommendation was followed.

Although this sizeable project has continued for over a decade, there does not seem to be a clear table or section of the report showing progress on the goals. The proponents do not show whether the supplemented stock is progressing toward the stage at which the program can be ended, as is the goal in supplementation. There also do not seem to be many meaningful reports resulting from this work. The project is summarized as routine fisheries work, but its fishery objectives should be stated and the results toward fulfilling them should be discussed. As the ISRP commented previously, “the desired outcome(s) should form the project’s biological objectives.” Once again, the proponents did not write this year’s proposal to remedy the problems with biological objectives.

The ISRP previously pointed out that the proposal should include the objective of terminating the project when M&E determines that supplementation either is not working or has been successful enough that the wild stock is recovered to the point that supplementation is no longer needed. The project is designed to provide emergency risk management of spring/summer Chinook in the subbasin and ultimately to recover self-sustaining populations if out-of-subbasin stressors are remedied. If those stressors are not remedied, the long-term viability of the spring/summer Chinook is uncertain. The ISRP commented in the previous review that a response was needed, in coordination with the other GRESCSP proposals, showing a decision tree detailing criteria for termination based on results, whether positive or negative.

The proposal lists annual fish production since 1997, but no quantitative results regarding the stock were reported and no management changes were shown. Therefore, meaningful accomplishments to date cannot be assessed on the basis of this proposal.

The Proponents state that: “The captive brood component was implemented to minimize the imminent demographic risk of extinction. The conventional component exists as a long-term strategy to balance the captive component and increase production while reducing the genetic risk of artificial selection. The GRESCSP has produced substantial adult spring Chinook returns to the target tributaries beginning in 2002. As returns increase, reliance on the captive component will diminish and as the demographic risk of extinction decreases, we will increase the conventional component until the captive brood component is expected to be phased out.” This paragraph would have much more meaning if data were presented to show how substantial those returns have been, how far along toward objectives those returns are, and, at the current rate of progress, when the existing captive brood program would be phased out. These data and projections do not seem to exist in the proposal. To include and discuss them could provide a useful description of success and status related to objectives. The ISRP requests that this be done in the next proposal.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1998-007-03-NPCC-20110125
Project: 1998-007-03 - Grande Ronde Supplementation O&M on Catherine Creek/Upper Grande Ronde River
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-1998-007-03
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: Implement with conditions through 2016: Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications in 2012 contract. Implementation subject to Lower Snake Comp Review process and the 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
Council Condition #2 Qualifications: The proponents should better describe their overall objectives for the fishery, not just operational, in-facility objectives. They should coordinate and integrate with CRHEET and show that they are implementing consistent protocols and metrics
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1998-007-03-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1998-007-03
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: No Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: Assume in mitigation for FCRPS.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-007-03-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1998-007-03
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: 1998-007-03-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1998-007-03 - Grande Ronde Supplementation O&M on Catherine Creek/Upper Grande Ronde River
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
See ISRP comments on the set of NEOH projects under proposal 198805301.

As one of several projects that compose the Grande Ronde Endemic Spring Chinook Supplementation Program (GRESCSP), this project covers the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Nation's role through operating adult capture facilities and juvenile acclimation and release facilities in the upper Grande Ronde River and Catherine Creek. The project will provide side benefits to other species such as steelhead through monitoring at weirs.

The proposal presents a strong case for continuation and funding as part of the GRESCSP. The project appears to be well integrated with the ODFW proposal 199800704 on spring Chinook in the Grande Ronde, both of which are needed to meet program goals. The proposal clarifies objectives and methods more than in the submissions of previous years. Methods were described in detail. Design was reasonable.

The proposal relates clearly to priorities and objectives outlined in the GRESCSP. As a "conservation" project, it meets ISRP review criteria. The requested funds are solidly matched with cost-shared funds from other sources. The stated objectives are operational.

A history of project activities, budgets, and results is presented in detail. In the narrative, unnecessarily repetitive data shown in the accompanying tables created confusion. Tables enable better overview of statistics than does narrative text. Moreover, many of the statistics stated in the narrative do not seem to match the values shown in the tables. This project's future proposals should summarize the quantitative results in tables or graphs, and should devote the project history narrative mainly to interpreting the biological significance of those results.

This sizeable project has continued for several years, but the data shown on returns indicate only modest success to date, especially with regard to natural production. As captive brood fish have returned in higher numbers, natural fish have responded much less dramatically, and dropped in 2005. The sponsors express little concern about this. Although the overall program may be under much internal NEOH scrutiny, there is little indication from the proposal or the response that it is.

The ISRP commented that some of the proposal's "biological objectives" are just tasks (activity objectives), and that, overall, the project is being run just as performances of operations, without its organization as a strategy directed toward reaching an outcome being explicitly set forth. The desired outcome(s) should form the project's biological objectives. The sponsors did not revise their proposal to remedy the problems with biological objectives; however, some of their response discussion indicates their strategy.

The ISRP pointed out that the proposal should include the objective of terminating the project when M&E determines that its supplementation either is not working or has been successful enough that it is no longer needed. The project is designed to provide emergency risk management of spring/summer Chinook in the subbasin and ultimately to recover self-sustaining populations if out-of-subbasin stressors are remedied. If those stressors are not remedied, the long-term viability of the spring/summer Chinook is uncertain. The ISRP commented that a response was needed, in coordination with the other GRESCSP proposals, showing a decision tree detailing criteria for termination based on results, whether positive or negative (see item 2, below).

The fundable (qualified) recommendation is for two reasons:

(1) Scientific justification for the project depends on the funding of the M&E proposal 200713200.

(2) In response to the ISRP request for a decision tree detailing criteria for termination based on results, whether positive or negative, the sponsors clarified planned activities if the results are positive, including termination of the captive broodstock program, etc. However, no information was provided on the criteria for termination if the program fails to show adequate, sustained results. The sponsors indicate that such decision would be made at an administrative level above the project level and do not say how those decisions would be made. This constitutes a lack of transparency in the plan. For reviewers to be able to evaluate the plan, the proposal should contain the criteria and anticipated alternatives that this higher level will use. (See the decision tree provided under proposal 199800704.)

Some of the data presented in the response are unclear. For example, some of the abbreviated column headings in Table 3a are not explained, so the material beneath them is not interpretable.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1998-007-03-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1998-007-03 - Grande Ronde Supplementation O&M on Catherine Creek/Upper Grande Ronde River
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: See discussion of Programmatc Issue: supplementation m&e. The budget reflects an anticipated land purchase removed from the FY 2007 budget. Project also ties to 200708300 for M&E component. The budget is considered a combined budget with 200708300 and CTUIR will define the split and work elements for each project

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Julie Burke Interested Party Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Brian Zimmerman Supervisor Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Mike McLean Project Lead Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Paul Krueger (Inactive) Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Katey Grange Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Steve Boe (Inactive) Interested Party Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Tracy Hauser Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration