Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2008-311-00 - Natural Production Management and Monitoring Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2008-311-00 - Natural Production Management and Monitoring

Please Note: This project is the product of one or more merges and/or splits from other projects. Historical data automatically included here are limited to the current project and previous generation (the “parent” projects) only. The Project Relationships section details the nature of the relationships between this project and the previous generation. To learn about the complete ancestry of this project, please review the Project Relationships section on the Project Summary page of each parent project.

Project Number:
2008-311-00
Title:
Natural Production Management and Monitoring
Summary:
Monitor production of naturally produced spring Chinook salmon and steelhead in Reservation streams. Objectives include verification of species distribution, adult escapement, spawning surveys, juvenile outmigration and abundance and development of management strategies and goals.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs (Tribe)
Starting FY:
2009
Ending FY:
2032
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Plateau Deschutes 100.00%
Purpose:
Programmatic
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
Chinook - All Populations
Chinook - Deschutes River Summer/Fall ESU
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Lamprey, Pacific
Other Resident
Steelhead - All Populations
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

No photos have been uploaded yet for this project.

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) $383,632 $474,063 $474,063 $474,063 $509,302

Post 2018 – Warm Springs $383,632 $383,632 $383,632 $412,149
Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs $90,431 $90,431 $90,431 $97,153
FY2019 (Current) $383,632 $1 $1 $35,529

Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs $383,632 $1 $1 $35,529
FY2020 (Next) $383,632 $383,632 $0 $0 $0

Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs $383,632 $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 $383,632 From: Post 2018 – Warm Springs FY18 Initial Planning Budgets (WS, CTUIR, YN, CRITFC, CCT, ID) 2/10/2017 02/13/2017
FY2018 Expense $312 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Budget Transfers (Warm Springs) 11/8/2017 11/09/2017
FY2018 Expense $312 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Budget Transfers (Warm Springs) 11/8/2017 11/09/2017
FY2018 Expense $21,469 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Budget Transfers (WS) 4/23/2018 05/24/2018
FY2018 Expense $21,469 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Budget Transfers (WS) 4/23/2018 05/24/2018
FY2018 Expense $53,648 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Budget Transfers (Idaho, WS, WDFW) 5/25/2018 05/25/2018
FY2018 Expense $36,783 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Budget Transfers (Idaho, WS, WDFW) 5/25/2018 05/25/2018
FY2019 Expense $383,632 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Extensions (Warm Springs Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2020 Expense $383,632 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Extensions (Warm Springs 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
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2018 $33,500 (Draft) 7 % (Draft)
2017 $52,000 (Draft) 11 % (Draft)

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-004441 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Natural Production Management & Monitoring Active $4,512 10/1/2008 - 9/30/2009
BPA-004906 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Natural Production Management and Monitoring Active $8,698 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
BPA-005751 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Nat'l Production Mgmt & Monitoring Active $0 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
BPA-006397 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Nat'l Production Mgmt & Monitoring Active $9,287 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
BPA-007034 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Nat'l Production Mgmt & Monitoring Active $9,333 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
BPA-007840 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Nat'l Production Mgmt & Monitoring Active $7,412 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
BPA-008411 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Nat'l Production Mgmt & Monitoring Active $18,773 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
BPA-008938 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Nat'l Production Mgmt & Monitoring Active $19,004 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
BPA-009592 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Nat'l Production Mgmt & Monitoring Active $19,053 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
76475 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 2008-311-00 EXP NATURAL PRODUCTION MGMT & MONITORING Issued $401,349 7/1/2017 - 6/30/2018
79664 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 2008-311-00 EXP NATURAL PRODUCTION MGMT & MONITORING Issued $474,063 7/1/2018 - 6/30/2019
CR-326041 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 2008-311-00 EXP NATURAL PRODUCTION MGMT & MONITORING Pending $1 7/1/2019 - 6/30/2020



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):13
Completed:4
On time:4
Status Reports
Completed:35
On time:23
Avg Days Late:29

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
BPA-004441 PIT Tags - Natural Production Management & Monitoring Bonneville Power Administration 10/2008 10/2008 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
41524 56875, 60648, 64276, 69558, 73078, 76475, 79664 2008-311-00 EXP NATURAL PRODUCTION MGMT&MONITO Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 03/2009 03/2009 Pending 35 174 29 1 22 226 89.82% 1
BPA-004906 PIT Tags - Natural Production Management and Monitoring Bonneville Power Administration 10/2009 10/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-005751 PIT Tags - Nat'l Production Mgmt & Monitoring Bonneville Power Administration 10/2010 10/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006397 PIT Tags - Nat'l Production Mgmt & Monitoring Bonneville Power Administration 10/2011 10/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-007034 PIT Tags - Nat'l Production Mgmt & Monitoring Bonneville Power Administration 10/2012 10/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-007840 PIT Tags - Nat'l Production Mgmt & Monitoring Bonneville Power Administration 10/2013 10/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008411 PIT Tags - Nat'l Production Mgmt & Monitoring Bonneville Power Administration 10/2014 10/2014 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008938 PIT Tags - Nat'l Production Mgmt & Monitoring Bonneville Power Administration 10/2015 10/2015 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-009592 PIT Tags - Nat'l Production Mgmt & Monitoring Bonneville Power Administration 10/2016 10/2016 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 35 174 29 1 22 226 89.82% 1


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 Categorical Review - Follow Up

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2008-311-00-NPCC-20120430
Project: 2008-311-00 - Natural Production Management and Monitoring
Review: RME / AP Categorical Review - Follow Up
Approved Date: 4/30/2012
Recommendation: Implement
Comments: BUDGETARY/ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The total budget for this Accord project equals $3,134,330 (i.e., it ranges from $314,865 to $383,632 per year) in expense funds for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2017. To date, one contract totaling $540,514 has been issued and had a performance period of March 1, 2009 to February 28, 2011 [1]. This contract has expired and currently there is no active contract associated with this proposal. In addition there is a contract request for $330,805 (CR-121019) with a start date of March 1, 2011 and an end date of February 28, 2013.

BACKGROUND
In 2008-2009, the Bonneville Power Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (the Action Agencies) signed agreements with the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (CTWSRO), the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (YN), and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC). The agreement with these Tribes and CRITFC is referred to as the Three Treaty Tribes MOA. The Action Agencies also signed agreements with the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (CCT), the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (SBT), and the states of Idaho, Montana, and Washington. These agreements are known as the Columbia Basin Fish Accords.

As set forth in the guidance document outlining the review process for the Accords, the Council recognizes Bonneville’s commitment to Accord projects. The Accords do not, however, alter the Council’s responsibilities with respect to independent scientific review of project proposals or the Council’s role following such reviews. As with all projects in the Fish and Wildlife Program, Accord projects are subject to review by the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP), and the Council provides funding recommendations based on full consideration of the ISRP's report and the Council’s Program.

On November 4, 2008, the Council received from Bonneville a set of 11 Columbia Basin Fish Accords proposals. Included in this set were two proposal from the CTWSRO for proposal #2008-311-00a Warm Springs Watershed Spring Chinook Production Monitoring, and proposal #2008-311-00b, Warm Springs Reservation Steelhead Production Monitoring. These proposals were submitted to the ISRP for review, and on December, 12, 2008 the ISRP provided a review (ISRP document 2008-15). The ISRP members requested additional information before they could determine if the proposal met scientific criteria.

On May 12, 2010, the Council received a response from Bonneville for Project #2008-311-00, Natural Production Monitoring and Management. This response was intended to address the ISRP’s concerns raised for the two proposal listed above. The proposals were combined by Bonneville and CTWSRO for cost and workload efficiencies.

On June 16, 2010 the Council received the ISRP review (ISRP document 2010-20). The ISRP provided a review by objectives (#8) and found that five need a response, two did not meet review criteria, and one the ISRP provided a “no recommendation”. Based on the Review Council staff requested a response for Bonneville and CTWSRO.

On November 19, 2010, the Council received a response and on December 15, 2010 the Council received a notice from Bonneville that the CTWSRO would like to pull the submittal from ISRP review. After discussing their submittal with Bonneville, the CTWSRO decided that their ISRP response could benefit from additional detail to clarify their responses to ISRP concerns.
On April 1, 2011, the Council received a submittal from Bonneville intended to address the issues raised by the ISRP in their previous review (ISRP document 2010-20). The submittal included a cover letter a revised narrative and support documents.

The goal of this project is to continue the life-cycle monitoring to maintain annual trend status data for spring Chinook salmon and steelhead populations in the Warm Springs River and Shitike Creek on the Reservation. These monitoring efforts will include adult escapement, adult spawning ground surveys, juvenile rearing, and juvenile outmigration.

On April 26, 2011 the Council received the follow-up review from the ISRP (ISRP document 2011-11). The ISRP found that CTWSRO had addressed many of the issues raised in their previous reviews, but requested additional detail of the interpretation of the data. The ISRP raised three issues needing to be resolved, and asked for additional detail regarding Goal 1 (i.e., Objective A, C, and D). Though certain actions associated with this proposal had met science review, the ISRP requested the sponsor to provide a response for science review.

On May 6, 2011 the Council received a response from CTWSRO and Bonneville intended on addressing the additional information and detailed by the ISRP in their previous review (ISRP document 2011-11). On May 25, 2011 the ISRP provided their review (ISRP document 2011-13) and requested a response regarding the three objectives that have not met science review criteria (i.e., Objective A, C, and D). To date, no public comment has been received on the ISRP reviews.

On November 23, 2011 the Council received a response from CTWSRO and Bonneville to address the information requested by the ISRP. The submittal included a cover letter that described changes made to the proposal and how past ISRP reviews and concerns had been addressed. Though the goal of the proposal remained the same the received proposal had been totally revised in design and detail (including the title [2]) by the CTWSRO staff. The revised proposal was submitted to the ISRP and on January 25, 2012 the ISRP provided their review (ISRP document 2012-1).

The ISRP found that the revised proposal meets scientific review criteria (qualified) and stated that the CTWSRO had provided sufficient details and information to implement this project.

ANALYSIS
The ISRP was supportive of this project and provided the qualification rating as “suggestions” that are not to be addressed in a response, but to be incorporated as part of the statement of work and the implementation of this project. In essence these “suggestions” are intended to strengthen the project overall and more importantly the findings.

Based on discussions with Bonneville and CTWSRO staffs, the Council staff determined that the “suggestions” raised by the ISRP can be addressed during contracting and incorporated into the statement of work associated with the implementation of the project. If needed the statement of work can be reviewed by Council staff to verify that the ISRP suggestions were addressed.

Based on the ISRP review, the Fish and Wildlife Committee recommends that the Council support this project for implementation.

Notes
[1] The project has spent $553,724 to date. Of that $540,514 has been spent on the contract and $13,210 from the project budget for BPA furnished PIT tags. The majority of the cost associated with billing for this contract are for Salary/Fringe, Supplies, Training/Travel (includes GSA rigs) and Office O&M for phone/internet services.

[2] The new title is as follows. Monitoring Wild Populations of Spring Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Summer Steelhead (O. mykiss) in Tributaries of the Lower Deschutes River within the Boundaries of The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2008-311-00-ISRP-20120430
Project: 2008-311-00 - Natural Production Management and Monitoring
Review: RME / AP Categorical Review - Follow Up
Completed Date: 4/30/2012
Final Round ISRP Date: 1/25/2012
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

Background
At the Council’s request, the ISRP reviewed a November 2011 response and revised proposal for the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation’s Fish Accord project, Monitoring Wild Populations of Spring Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Summer Steelhead (O. mykiss) in Tributaries of the Lower Deschutes River within the Boundaries of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (2008-311-00). This project was previously titled Natural Production Monitoring and Management.


This project is designed to monitor production of naturally produced spring Chinook salmon and steelhead in Reservation streams. Objectives include verification of species distribution, adult escapement, spawning surveys, juvenile outmigration and abundance and development of management strategies and goals. The ISRP reviewed earlier versions of this proposal: one in 2008, one in 2010, and two in 2011. See the most recent past review from May 2011 at ISRP 2011-13..

Recommendation
Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
In general the project proponents provide sufficient justification for collecting and analyzing information on juvenile abundance to assess stream capacity, outmigration abundance, and migration timing for juveniles and adults. Data collected will also allow a better description of spring Chinook diversity, adult abundance, and pre-spawning mortality.

Although the ISRP does not need to review any additional responses, the project should address the following ISRP suggestions in development of a final statement of work and implementation of the project:

  • Existing data presented in Appendix A deserve further analyses to assist development of the decision framework and proposed activities.
  • The proponents should identify hatchery and natural adults in areas upstream of the smolt traps and incorporate downstream harvests of their fish into the recruitment analysis.
  • Justification for sampling 50 juveniles of each species each week should be provided. Why is sampling 50 fish sufficient, but not excessive?
  • Rationale for the target goal for estimating trap efficiency presented on page 40 is not provided. Justification is necessary, including why 5% precision in Table 7 is the target.
  • The proponents should develop a set of criteria for establishing when improvements in juvenile outmigration can be clearly linked to habitat restoration efforts.
  • Although snorkel surveys have been described in good detail and methodological concerns with redd surveys have been addressed, it would be helpful to establish visibility criteria based on turbidity measurements that would be used to determine when snorkeling and redd surveys would be suspended.

More details on these and additional suggestions are provided in the ISRP comments below.

Summary Comments
This proposal includes many details in support of the proposed activities and provides a fairly comprehensive narrative. The proposal’s eight listed objectives (although essentially tasks) identify reasonable activities in support of the project’s overall objectives that are described in narrative form. Inclusion of additional staff is a step in the right direction.

The project proponents have done a good job of describing field methods and techniques to assure quality control. The ISRP appreciates the details given for field crew training – something often lacking in other proposals. The sampling methods, for example the modified Hankin-Reeves snorkel surveys, have been carefully considered and are appropriate to the project’s setting and objectives. The proponents should identify hatchery and natural adults in areas upstream of the smolt traps and incorporate downstream harvests of their fish into the recruitment analysis.

The proponents have constructively used the ISRP comments, sought statistical advice, and modified sampling schemes to address the precision and bias of PIT tag assessments and sampling designs. Nevertheless, more information on the multiple regression analytical techniques proposed to evaluate the strength of fish abundance-habitat relationships would have been helpful, as well as a better description of how data would be archived and eventually made available to others involved in similar restoration projects.

The management application of the data is clearer in this iteration of the proposal. The information will be essential to the ongoing habitat restoration under the Warm Springs Fish Accord proposal #2008-301-00 (see ISRP 2011-27), for both assessment of effectiveness and for developing restoration strategies. Objective 8 provides a framework for assessing monitoring data to guide management and is a valuable component of the project indicating that project results will have an impact.

The appendices summarizing past data were very illuminating, but the data already collected deserve further analyses to assist development of the decision framework and proposed activities. The data and analyses presented in Appendix A suggest that a closer look and further analysis is warranted. For example:

  1. It is not clear if the data in the Figures includes both wild and hatchery fish – this must be clarified, and a separate analysis applied to each.
  2. Figure A7 on adult Chinook and juveniles should be re-analyzed as Beverton-Holt recruitment curves with a focus on regimes, for example stratified by PDO shifts. If the relationship still appears linear this suggests the system is under-seeded, that is, not at capacity.
  3. Figure A8 appears non-linear as it should if Beverton-Holt recruitment applies. This figure suggests capacity is ~ 1000 adults. A re-analyses into regimes of productivity could be informative. Fig A9 is a function of the number of spawners, and appears to show adult returns in the regime shifts as ‘77 to ‘89, ‘90 to ‘99, 2000-2004. The same pattern may exist for outmigrants. These data may already inform an estimate of allowable harvest (see Ricker 1975 Appendices) as well as assist in defining the limiting life stage for both species.

 

ISRP General Comments
The questions below were asked in our earlier reviews and the proponents have responded, demonstrating progress in all iterations. Our comments regarding the most recent response are provided below after each question.

1. What management decisions will these data inform?

Management objectives have not been entirely clarified in this iteration of the proposal. The proponents explain the escapement goal for wild spring Chinook of 1,377 fish was derived by the USFWS (Appendix C) and further state there is no escapement goal for steelhead. The proposal states that it is current Tribal policy that wild steelhead will not be harvested, but that this policy could change if the overall health of the steelhead population reaches a point where some harvest could be sustained. Have numerical thresholds for population abundance been established which will allow for some Tribal catch of wild steelhead?

2. Will the data, including PIT-tag data, be sufficiently precise to adequately manage risk and provide confidence in decisions made? Evidence of data adequacy should be provided.

Appendix B provides some statistical rationale for number of PIT-tagged fish released. The data will be used for juvenile survival rates both within and outside the Deschutes subbasin and should be useful additions to databases on this topic.

It is not clear what the ultimate value is for the effort at qualitative documentation of the species assemblage in one pool and one riffle section in each of the five lower reaches in the Warm Springs River. The justification that this will, “allow a comparison of the distribution richness of assemblages of fishes and may be useful in detecting presence of non-native species” is not compelling.

Justification for sampling 50 juveniles of each species each week should be provided. Why is sampling 50 fish sufficient, but not excessive?
The target goal presented on page 40 for estimating trap efficiency is not clear. Justification is necessary, including why 5% precision in Table 7 is the target.

3. Will the GRTS-based sampling design be adequate given the physical constraints in the study area?

The proponents did an excellent job of describing how they arrived at a method for sampling in the canyons, and the ISRP is comfortable with the technique that was selected. The proposal states that sampling will occur from June to September, and quite likely this sampling window will experience a significant decline in streamflow over summer. Hopefully fish visibility will not change so much that early summer surveys underestimate juvenile abundance, but with the quality assurance controls in place the visual technique seems quite sound.

ISRP Comments and Recommendation Specific to Each Objective
For continuity of the review discussion across numerous reviews, organization of the objectives below is based on earlier proposals and responses.

Project Goal 1. Continue and improve annual life stage monitoring of wild spring Chinook salmon and steelhead in the Warm Springs River Basin and Shitike Creek.

Objective A) Juvenile Outmigration Monitoring
ISRP 2011-13: Response Requested

The ISRP encourages project proponents to develop a set of criteria for establishing when improvements in juvenile outmigration can be clearly linked to habitat restoration efforts. It will be important to develop a protocol to partition restoration effects from other factors such as cyclic weather changes (PDO regime shifts, El Niño/La Niña cycles) in order to measure restoration effectiveness.

PIT tagging and juvenile outmigration data will support life history and growth rate studies and include out-of-subbasin sampling. It is not entirely clear how the data will be used in cohort-run reconstruction for harvest management considerations.

Some details are missing in the length at age verification task. It is not clear how collection of scales will be randomized or why 50 fish of each species will be collected. The selected number of scales to be collected is not random; rather it is unknown until proportion of scale samples in each length group is known. It is not clear that the intense effort at age verification is warranted. Are the benefits worth the effort?

Objective B) Collect tissue samples for genetic analysis of O. mykiss in the Warm Springs River drainage
ISRP 2011-11: This objective was dropped from the project.

Objective C) Summer rearing snorkel surveys
ISRP 2011-13 - Response Requested

Snorkel and electrofishing surveys have been described in good detail. It would be helpful to establish visibility criteria based on turbidity measurements that would be used to determine when snorkeling surveys would be suspended.

Objective D) Spawning ground (redd) surveys
ISRP 2011-13: Response Requested

Methodological concerns were addressed, and a better description of the work was provided. Redd surveys have been expanded to the canyon reaches, and a method of comparing surveys in non-canyon reaches was presented. A method of comparing data from kayak and foot surveys was also developed. As with the snorkel surveys, it would be helpful to establish visibility criteria based on turbidity measurements that would be used to determine when redd surveys would be suspended.

Using a rotating panel design to identify redd distribution in multiple reaches is a good approach. Also, efforts at quality control of data collection are a positive feature of the redd enumeration effort.

Objective E) Enumerate adult escapement into Shitike Creek and the Warm Springs River
ISRP 2011-11: Meets Criteria

Objective F) Estimate harvest of Chinook salmon and Steelhead in the Deschutes Basin
ISRP 2011-11: Not Applicable

Project Goal 2. Provide management and co-management direction of the fisheries resources in the Deschutes River Basin

Objective A) Cooperate in Deschutes River Basin Fisheries Management Activities
ISRP 2011-11: Meets Criteria

Objective B) Provide co-management and assistance with fish handling at the Warm Springs National Fish Hatchery
ISRP 2011-11: Not Applicable

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/30/2012 10:44:59 AM.
Documentation Links:
Review: Fish Accord ISRP Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2008-311-00-ISRP-20100323
Project: 2008-311-00 - Natural Production Management and Monitoring
Review: Fish Accord ISRP Review
Completed Date: None
First Round ISRP Date: 12/12/2008
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:
The proposal is insufficient for technical review. The proposal identifies several monitoring, evaluation, and production topics for investigation of future tasks and actions. The present proposal does not present sufficient detail for an evaluation of the proposed work. The data obtained from the monitoring elements, and the derived metrics estimated from the data appear to be appropriate for management decisions but the explanation and justification for these tasks is not adequate. This appears to be a proposal to do a proposal by identifying feasibility studies. Basic details should be provided to better justify and explain the proposed approach and expected outcomes. The current level of description is inadequate to determine what is being proposed and why.

The culture and release of fish for testing supplementation appear to be of sufficient scale to warrant a Three-Step Review, compliance with Northwest Power and Conservation Council Artificial Production Review policies, and would likely require an HGMP.

A comment in the steelhead project 2008-311-00b is also germane to the spring Chinook. The need for projects such as this is clear due to the required BiOp mitigation for hydro losses by doing offsite actions in the tributaries. In fact the 2000 BiOp was partially invalidated because the offsite actions were not certain to occur. The Accord Agreements are designed to make the actions reasonably certain to occur.
Documentation Links:
Review: RME / AP Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2008-311-00-NPCC-20110701
Project: 2008-311-00 - Natural Production Management and Monitoring
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-2008-311-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Under Review
Comments: Project implementation based on outcome of review process.

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 2008-311-00-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 2008-311-00
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2008-311-00
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Response Requested
Comments: BiOp Workgroup Comments: BPA has questions regarding the recommendation of full parental genotyping. The Workgroup cannot determine whether Lolo Creek is sampled.

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)
All Questionable RPA Associations ( ) and
All Deleted RPA Associations ( 50.6 62.5 64.2)
Proponent Response:

Project Relationships: This project Merged From 2008-305-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine all work/budgets from projects 2008-305-00 (& 2008-304-00) to project 2008-311-00

This project Merged From 2008-304-00 effective on 11/20/2008
Relationship Description: Combine all work/budgets from projects 2008-304-00 (& 2008-305-00) to project 2008-311-00


Name Role Organization
Brad Houslet Interested Party Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Cyndi Baker Project Lead Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
John Skidmore Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Jesse Wilson Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Kurt Karageorge (Inactive) Technical Contact Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Chris Brun Supervisor Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs