< Back to list of FY 2007-2009 projects

199000501 - Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project

Sponsor: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Budgets: FY07: $779,657 | FY08: $795,314 | FY09: $831,704

Short description: Salmonid Monitoring and Evaluation: Provide ecological information and technical services to decision makers in support of adaptive management for sustainable restoration, conservation, and preservation of salmonid and aquatic resources.

view full proposal

Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)

Funding category: Expense

Recommended budgets: FY07: $395,129 | FY08: $395,129 | FY09: $395,129

Comment: The project sponsors are to work with the Council and others to structure an ISRP/Council review of the coordinated subbasin activities in the Umatilla at some point in the next two years. Hold to scope of FY 2006.

ISRP final recommendation: Not fundable (Qualified)

Comment:

The key question of the proposal evaluation remains: given past and future efforts will this work provide useful and science-based M&E results? In general, the answer seems positive, if correctly focused, but despite a somewhat detailed response, the impression is that tasks are confused. No progress reports were included, although some additional data were provided. Nonetheless, the key recruitment analyses and required basic evaluations of life-stage limiting factors remain unreported, at least in the response. Such analysis would point to the key elements of fisheries science and management, where actions may be derived based on stock status and trends. For example, Chilcote (2003) suggested wild steelhead in the Umatilla had recruits per spawner values that were lowered in the presence of hatchery steelhead. Do results of this project refute or agree with his relationships? The sponsors agreed it is essential that the Council facilitate a targeted review of the Umatilla programs within two years. The investments in this watershed, particularly in flow augmentation, but also hatchery and habitat work, demand a prioritization that this response seems to largely dismiss. The management domains, critical uncertainties, and life history phase relationships presented in Figure 1 all relate to the same subbasin vision and goals, and represent a reasonable starting point for M&E, and from which clear testable hypotheses should be developed. It is difficult to suggest whether there is too much or not enough M&E present here until such review, and until available results are analyzed effectively, and in relation to the good work of the subbasin planning exercise. The ISRP needs to see specific objectives with measurable endpoints to provide a science review. See also related comments on the suite of proposals from this subbasin: 198343600, 198802200, 198902700, 19871001, and 19871002. In summary, there is a need for a Umatilla program review, and within that, a need to define clearly the role of this project in directing management activities within the subbasin. Funding should be qualified on the ability to make that tie. This work is central to the whole effort of fisheries and habitat management in the subbasin. It needs to provide data and inform when to release water, when to truck, etc.

Response loop edit

See the sponsor's revised proposal from the response loop. You'll be taken to CBFWA's proposal system in Section 10 where most sponsors uploaded revised narratives or other responses to the ISRP comments.

State/province recommendation: Fundable, but at a reduced level

Review group: OSPIT - Plateau

Recommended budgets: FY07: $395,129 | FY08: $395,129 | FY09: $395,129

Comment: OSPIT recomends holding project funding to FY06 levels and flatlined. OSPIT hopes to find greater synergies with the three M&E projects (199000500, 199000501 and 198902401) for other possible budget reductions.