Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2007-083-00 - Grande Ronde Supplementation Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) on Catherine Creek/Upper Grande Ronde River Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2007-083-00 - Grande Ronde Supplementation Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) on Catherine Creek/Upper Grande Ronde River
Project Number:
2007-083-00
Title:
Grande Ronde Supplementation Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) on Catherine Creek/Upper Grande Ronde River
Summary:
I. Project Goal

To monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of supplementation in recovering spring Chinook salmon populations in the upper Grande Ronde River and Catherine Creek.

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 construction and operation of mainstem Columbia and Snake River dams. CTUIR is seeking restoration of these populations. 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. Grande Ronde Basin tributaries currently being targeted for spring Chinook supplementation include the upper Grande Ronde River, Catherine Creek and the Lostine River. The focus of this project is directed at Catherine Creek and the upper Grande Ronde River, within the ceded lands boundary of CTUIR. Adult spring Chinook salmon are captured at weirs on these tributaries operated by CTUIR and spawned at Lookingglass Hatchery. CTUIR also operates juvenile acclimation facilities for spring Chinook salmon in the upper Grande Ronde River and Catherine Creek. This project is for the M&E portion of the project formerly numbered 199807003.

III. Location of Project

The project is located in the Blue Mountains of eastern Oregon. The Catherine Creek Acclimation Facility is at river mile 29 (rkm 47.5) of Catherine Creek (HUC 17060104). The Catherine Creek Adult Collection Facility is at river mile 20 (rkm 33.0) of Catherine Creek (HUC 17060104). The Grande Ronde Acclimation Facility is at river mile 199 (rkm 319.4) of the Grande Ronde River (HUC 17060104). The Grande Ronde Adult Collection Facility is at river mile 191 (rkm 307.4) of the Grande Ronde River

IV. BPA-Furnished Property

1. Catherine Creek acclimation facility and water right.
2. Catherine Creek adult weir.
3. Upper Grande Ronde acclimation facility and water right.
4. Upper Grande Ronde adult weir.

V. Objectives of this project are to: 1)plan for, administer, and coordinate Project activities, 2) operate two juvenile spring Chinook salmon acclimation facilities on Catherine Creek and the upper Grande Ronde River, 3)operate two or more adult anadromous salmonid collection facilities on Catherine Creek and the upper Grande Ronde River, 4)provide comanagers assistance in Program operations, 5)communicate results to the scientific community, 6)evaluate acclimated juvenile spring Chinook salmon performance, 7)evaluate life history differences between wild and hatchery-origin (F1) adult spring Chinook salmon, 8)describe life history characteristics and genetics of adult summer steelhead collected at weirs, 9)evaluate environmental factors affecting migration or survival of anadromous salmonids, 10)evaluate weir effects on fish migration or behavior, and 11)provide Program assistance for monitoring and evaluation activities.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) (Tribe)
Starting FY:
2007
Ending FY:
2032
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Blue Mountain Grande Ronde 100.00%
Purpose:
Artificial Production
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Freshwater Mussels
Lamprey, Pacific
Steelhead - Snake River DPS
Trout, Bull
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

The Grande Ronde Basin, showing Lookingglass Hatchery, adult collection traps, and juvenile acclimation sites.

Figure Name: Figure 1

Document ID: P114783

Document: Monitoring and Evaluation of Supplemented Spring Chinook Salmon and Life Histories of Wild Summer Steelhead in the Grande Ronde Basin

Page Number: 12

Project: 2007-083-00

Contract: 40626


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 *
FY2018 (Previous) $225,300 $284,981 $284,981 $284,981 $274,803

Post 2018 – Umatilla $284,981 $284,981 $284,981 $274,803
FY2019 (Current) $284,981 $284,981 $284,981 $18,956

Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla $284,981 $284,981 $284,981 $18,956
FY2020 (Next) $284,981 $284,981 $0 $0 $0

Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla $284,981 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Oct-2018

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2018 - FY2020)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2018 Expense $234,688 From: Post 2018 – Umatilla FY18 Initial Planning Budgets (WS, CTUIR, YN, CRITFC, CCT, ID) 2/10/2017 02/13/2017
FY2018 Expense $9,388 To: Post 2018 – Umatilla CTUIR Establish FY18 budget for 2012-010-00 Accord Administration 08/21/2017
FY2018 Expense $59,681 From: Post 2018 – Umatilla Accord Budget Transfers (CTUIR, CRITFC, Idaho, WS) 10/19/2017 10/19/2017
FY2019 Expense $284,981 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Extensions (Umatilla Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2020 Expense $284,981 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Umatilla Accord Extensions (Umatilla Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2019
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) $32,000
Total $0 $32,000
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2018 $32,771 10 %
2017 $50,000 15 %
2016 $36,700 10 %
2015 $57,783 22 %
2014 $2,192,000 92 %
2013 $2,182,000 92 %
2012 $3,207,000 95 %
2011 $1,855,000 91 %
2010 $1,975,000 92 %
2009 $1,998,225 93 %
2008 $1,896,548 93 %
2007 $1,816,703 92 %

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-006484 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Grande Ronde Supplementation M&E Active $1,591 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
BPA-006984 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Grande Ronde Supplementation M&E Active $0 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
73982 REL 31 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 2007-083-00 EXP GRANDE RONDE SUPPLEMENTATION M&E 2018 Issued $284,981 1/1/2018 - 12/31/2018
CR-327349 SOW Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 2007-083-00 EXP GRANDE RONDE SUPPLEMENTATION M&E 2019 Review $284,981 1/1/2019 - 12/31/2019



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):20
Completed:9
On time:9
Status Reports
Completed:47
On time:34
Avg Days Early:1

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
32603 36505, 40626, 45483, 51474, 55805, 60933, 64017, 67959, 71611, 73982 REL 4, 73982 REL 31 2007-083-00 EXP GRANDE RONDE SUPPMENTATION M&E Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR) 01/2007 01/2007 Review 47 205 17 0 28 250 88.80% 2
BPA-006484 PIT Tags - Grande Ronde Supplementation M&E Bonneville Power Administration 10/2011 10/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 47 205 17 0 28 250 88.80% 2


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: RME / AP Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2007-083-00-NPCC-20110125
Project: 2007-083-00 - Grande Ronde Supplementation Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) on Catherine Creek/Upper Grande Ronde River
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-2007-083-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: Implement with conditions through 2016: Implementation subject to Lower Snake Comp Review process and the hatchery effects evaluation process described in programmatic recommendation #4. ISRP qualifications to be addressed in geographc review.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #4 Hatchery Effectiveness—subject to regional hatchery effects evaluation process
Council Condition #2 Qualification: A full explanation of the monitoring program for the Grande Ronde/Imnaha should be developed by co-managers and made available to the ISRP. This should be completed no later than the geographic review of habitat projects in this subbasin/subregion.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-083-00-ISRP-20101015
Project: 2007-083-00 - Grande Ronde Supplementation Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) on Catherine Creek/Upper Grande Ronde River
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2007-083-00
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: A full explanation of the monitoring program for the Grande Ronde/Imnaha should be developed by co-managers and made available to the ISRP. This should be completed no later than the geographic review of habitat projects in this subbasin/subregion.

This proposal can only be judged as part of a larger scheme to evaluate salmon and steelhead VSP parameters, hatchery effectiveness, and habitat restoration response in the Snake Basin ESU. The proponent indicates the work complies with the ASMS but does not link the work to specific objectives and goals of the ASMS. That makes it difficult to figure out what this project does in relation to other Fish and Wildlife Program and Lower Snake River Compensation Plan (LSRCP) monitoring by ODFW, WDFW, and the Nez Perce Tribe. The proponent (and those of other projects) should not assume that ISRP reviewers know how the project fits in with the overall program; instead, the proponent should summarize this in clear narrative form. In other words, the ISRP should not have to investigate outside the proposal (see below) to determine whether the project is meeting program objectives.

The ISRP could only assume that the projects are essential to the LSRCP, for the proposal did not tell why this may be so, nor did it give information by which to judge whether the data are being properly collected and analyzed. The ISRP is concerned about quality control within the project and the broader program. The overly fragmentary array of projects–and the confusing interagency responsibilities within this particular project–severely hamper overview with respect to scientific merit and raises concern about overall program design and supervision. A system for more easily understood integration of proposals is needed, and the ISRP encourages the project proponent to more clearly explain in future proposals the project purposes in terms of the overall program and what the results signify.

In subsequent investigation, we learned that the CTUIR weir monitoring on Catherine Creek and the upper Grande Ronde River is an essential component of implementation of the LSRCP in the Grande Ronde subbasin, and is essential for adult return data collections. The data analysis for artificial and natural production is performed by ODFW, funded by the LSRCP program. Juvenile tagging, juvenile trapping, and returning adult monitoring is funded through the Fish and Wildlife Program. The Nez Perce Tribe and ODFW are involved in smolt monitoring, and the CTUIR takes the lead on adult trapping and monitoring. The monitoring is done according to the NEOH monitoring plan, which the ISRP has reviewed.

The response to ISRP questions and comments was inadequate in many respects. For example, to address the comparisons of hatchery versus natural survival of smolts to Lower Granite Dam, the response only stated that the comparisons are complicated. Similarly, for volitional versus force-out release strategy comparisons for the upper Grande Ronde River, the response did not offer information other than they are of limited utility due to limited sample sizes. Some justification for terminating these comparisons or increasing sample sizes would be useful.

The answers to questions about specific Objectives 2, 3, and 5 contain piecemeal fact statements, which, taken together within each objective and lacking program-related interpretations, result in vagueness. For example, in the response on Objective 2 (evaluate performance of hatchery-origin juveniles), there is no discussion of implications for success of the supplementation program that may lie in data on the differences in body size and condition factor or on the differences in survival and in arrival time to Lower Granite Dam.

The response on Objective 3 (describe life history and productivity) has, again, no comment on meaning of the results for the supplementation program. Also, there is apparent inconsistency between the last sentence of response paragraph 1, which says that upper Grand Ronde River “natural-origin returns are frequently low compared to hatchery-origin” and the second sentence of next paragraph: “Mean SARs of upper Grand Ronde BY 1999-2004 hatchery origin [fish] ... was 0.5% (range 0.3-0.9) compared to 1.4% (range 0.6-2.9) for natural-origin.”

The response on Objective 5 (life history of summer steelhead) is a fact-string that comes to no point with regard to program success or lack of it.

The response was vague in overall effect on the ISRP questions as to (1) whether carrying capacity of freshwater habitat can be determined, (2) how such information could be used to establish goals and limitations for supplementation in subbasins, (3) how the project is helping to answer that, and (4) what the results indicate thus far. Related to that was the later ISRP suggestion that data from the project should be examined for signs of density-dependent compensation; this received no explicit response from the proponent.

Concerning the fact (from oral presentation by proponent) that natural-origin SARs in Catherine Creek from 1994 through 2004 exceeded those of hatchery by about three times on average, and that the proponents said results in upper Grand Ronde were about the same, the ISRP asked what this disparity may mean for the future of those populations. The response dealt with some operational changes that might be made but did not say what the disparity may mean for the future of the populations.

In response to the query about how far the program has progressed toward the goal of recovering depleted populations, the proponents present data on the populations and conclude that “it appears as though for most populations, replacement of natural spawners is not occurring ...” This would seem to demand an extensive response justifying why the project should continue.
First Round ISRP Date: 10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:
The response should present the interpretations and conclusions that can be drawn from the data that the project has accumulated for 10 years or more. This requirement is consistent with the project objective: “Communicate results to the scientific community.” In addition, the proponents should explain more thoroughly in narrative how this project is essential and how it is integrated within the overall monitoring conducted by other co-managers for Grande Ronde projects.

The proponents point out that there is no hypothesis or standard of evaluation for survival to Lower Granite Dam. In the response, they should rectify those deficiencies.

They also state that for spring Chinook, most of the data are LSRCP project data, and that the weirs are staffed by other projects. Therefore, the ISRP requests that the proponents clarify what this project actually did. They should explain the sources of all the monitoring data for anadromous salmon. They should also explain the need for the data as identified in the basin Anadromous Salmonid Monitoring Strategy. The role this project plays in the monitoring and evaluation of BPA and LSRCP supplementation is not at all clear. There needs to be a full explanation of the relationships of the M&E projects in the Grande Ronde subbasin, including those implemented under non-Fish and Wildlife Program projects.

Project proponents for research and M&E projects that have existed for a significant period (in this case, apparently 12 years or more, formerly within another project) should, besides showing the accumulated data, also present narrative analyses of those data – or explain why the data are not yet sufficient to permit meaningful analysis.

Based on the project’s data thus far (and data from coordinated projects that this project uses), what do the proponents conclude with respect to the following project objectives:
• Objective 2) evaluate performance of hatchery-origin juvenile spring Chinook salmon released from acclimation facilities on Catherine Creek and the upper Grande Ronde River,
• Objective 3) describe life history and productivity of hatchery- and natural-origin spring Chinook salmon in Catherine Creek and the upper Grande Ronde River, and
• Objective 5) describe life history of summer steelhead from Catherine Creek, the upper Grande Ronde River and Lookingglass Creek?

One of the stated critical uncertainties that the project addresses for hatcheries/artificial production, harvest, and population structure and diversity (NWPCC 2006) is: “Can the carrying capacity of freshwater habitat be accurately determined and, if so, how should this information be used to establish the goals and limitations of supplementation within subbasins?” How is the project helping to answer this question, and what do the results thus far indicate in this respect?

Further, the proponents’ goal statement in oral presentation was “to recover depleted populations in the Grande Ronde Subbasin of northeastern Oregon.” On the basis of this project’s results (and possibly those of coordinated projects), what can the proponents say about how far the program has progressed toward meeting that goal?

The proponents’ oral presentation included two graphs representing some helpful data analyses beyond those in the proposal. One graph showed recruits per spawner (R/S) for brood years 1999-2004 in Catherine Creek and Upper Grand Ronde River (no results for control streams Wenaha and Minam). The other graph compared smolt-to-adult return rates (SAR) of hatchery-origin and natural-origin fish in Catherine Creek from 1998 through 2004. Natural-origin SARs consistently exceeded those for hatchery fish by about 3 times on average. The proponents commented that results for Upper Grand Ronde were about the same (no data shown). In the response, they should show the results and discuss what the disparity between origin types may mean for the future of the populations.

This project’s data, combined with those from other projects in the Grand Ronde system, should be examined for signs of density-dependent compensation in populations (stock-recruitment analysis). Hints of it existed in presentations for several projects. Evidence of such compensation would bode against benefit from supplementation and would be consistent with the strategy of working to restore habitat. In other words, releasing smolts into a stream cannot benefit natural spawning results beyond a certain habitat-limited level, and that level already may have been reached in some streams that have less than favorable habitat. The numbers of adults in the streams look very low considering what one might assume “pristine” (or even more recent historical) abundance was. This may make it difficult to test for density-dependence.

Fieldwork duplication does not seem to be a problem, but this project needs to coordinate closely with other M&E projects in data analysis and interpretation.

In oral presentation, the project representative revealed that reduced landowner willingness to grant access limits suitable monitoring (the ISRP assumes this must also limit restoration and management). The ISRP urges that the Grand Ronde Model Watershed Program’s liaison be reinvigorated to encourage better relations and more success in salmon recovery.

The ISRP requests clarification about whether the project’s primary effort goes into assisting other co-managers or into trapping. A large component of the project is program assistance. Please justify this. There are three 0.5 PTEs working on this project.
Documentation Links:
  • Proponent Response (11/15/2010)

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-083-00-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 2007-083-00
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2007-083-00
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Response Requested
Comments: BiOp Workgroup Comments: For compliance with RPA 50.7: This RPA action is for hatchery fish marking only. Confirm that the scope of work proposed is for 100% marking of fish (visible or non visible) from the hatchery supported. If this project is marking fish for the hatchery, please specify the hatchery name and populations affected. If marking is conducted under another project or program, please let us know the name of that project/program.

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: (50.3 50.6 50.7 51.2 51.3 63.1 64.1 64.2 71.4 72.1 )
All Questionable RPA Associations (50.7) and
All Deleted RPA Associations ( 56.1 56.2 56.3 57.4 62.2 62.4 63.2 72.2)
Proponent Response:

Comments for BiOp RM&E Workgroup regarding RPA’s in proposal 2007-083-00

 The following constitutes the response requested, and provides justification for the inclusion of RPAs 50.7 and 62.4.

 

RPA 50.7.  This is assistance for marking of juvenile spring Chinook salmon reared primarily at Lookingglass Fish Hatchery (with some rearing taking place at Wallowa FH and Irrigon FH).  Stocks are upper Grande Ronde River and Catherine Creek.  All fish (100%) receive some mark or combination of marks (Ad, CWT, VIE, PIT tag).  Marking is conducted under LSRCP Oregon Spring Chinook Evaluation Studies, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is the lead agency.

 RPA 62.4.  Support coded-wire tagging and coded-wire tag recovery operations that inform survival, straying, and harvest rates of hatchery fish by stock, rearing facility, release treatment, and location.

This project supports RPA 62.4, although it is not a “selected” project under RPA 62.  The great majority of spring Chinook salmon production groups destined for release in the upper Grande Ronde River and Catherine Creek are reared at Lookingglass Fish Hatchery and receive CWT. Snouts are taken from carcass recoveries made on spawning ground surveys, at weirs, or during spawning activities at Lookingglass Hatchery.  Determining the magnitude of straying by these two stocks is particularly important, as are the contributions to harvest fisheries and natural spawning of groups with no external marks (CWT only) and those with both external and internal marks (Ad clip/CWT). 

Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2007-083-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2007-083-00 - Grande Ronde Supplementation Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) on Catherine Creek/Upper Grande Ronde River
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: M&E component of this project tied to project 199800703. The budget is considered a combined budget with 199800703 and CTUIR will define the split and work elements for each project.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-083-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2007-083-00 - Grande Ronde Supplementation Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) 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:
The proposed project is for the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation to participate with co-managers on a subbasin-wide monitoring and evaluation (M&E) program in the Grande Ronde subbasin. Previously part of the operation and maintenance (O&M) project, the project is an expanded M&E effort. The need for monitoring and evaluation is clear. The proposal provides details for many M&E activities for Spring/Summer Chinook, Bull trout, and Steelhead.

The project addresses critical needs for information identified in the Grande Ronde subbasin plan and connects to various other plans and projects. However, the primary thrust of this project is aimed at assessing natural productivity in the subbasin. The relationships to other projects in the subbasin and in the region are clearly described. Collaboration is an important element of the work proposed in the project. The project has the potential to provide information that will benefit spring/summer Chinook, steelhead, bull trout and fall chinook. Ultimately, it is fairly extensive in its coverage.

The project defines several biological objectives, plus several programmatic objectives. Objectives include assessing status and trends of salmonids in subbasin, assessing salmonid productivity, assessing both life history and genetic salmonid diversity, assessing related program effectiveness, coordination, and reporting/disseminating findings. There is a need to separate the monitoring from the evaluations, and from research. Some monitoring of population dynamics at a few key sites may be useful for management. Evaluation of management actions experimentally is warranted to assess effectiveness where possible, but not everywhere.

The work proposed here should prioritize the data collection, analysis, and interpretation activities. Priorities by species, life stage, and geography would help ensure efficiency of this extensive project.

Most methods are adequately described. The proposal contains much variation in the level of sophistication and validity of statistical methods proposed. Some statistical methods are not appropriate such as using Scheffe's method for multiple comparisons only after the ANOVA shows significant differences or using Spearman's correlation for relating scale loss to season. The claim that cause-effect relationships can be inferred from an observational study is not scientifically sound without additional justification. These issues indicate that the sponsors should engage additional personnel to assist with data analysis and interpretation. A statistician should be involved with the project to provide advice on appropriate analysis methods and to provide support during analysis and report writing.

Facilities appear to be adequate. Personnel know the subbasin well based on previous work in the area. Information transfer is described and has an entire objective associated with reporting, analyzing, and disseminating information and data. It is unclear if the current personnel will be able to adequately process the data generated to provide peer reviewed publications.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 2007-083-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2007-083-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 1 - Appears reasonable
Comment: Population/status monitoring; fishery managers authorized/required.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-083-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2007-083-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Gary James Interested Party Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Julie Burke Administrative Contact Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Gene Shippentower Supervisor Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Jennifer Stolz (Inactive) Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Paul Krueger (Inactive) Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Katey Grange Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Mike McLean Technical Contact Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Leslie Naylor Project Lead Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Carrie Crump Technical Contact Umatilla Confederated Tribes (CTUIR)
Tracy Hauser Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Claire McClory Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration