1	Phil Roger	Consensus of group discussion at NE Oregon EDT workshop 11/3/03, based on knowledge of existing data.	11/3/2003	11/3/2003	2		
2	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	1/27/2004	1/27/2004	3		99
3	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	1/27/2004	1/27/2004	3		99
4	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	1/27/2004	1/27/2004	3		99
5	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	1/27/2004	1/27/2004	3		99
6	Karleen Davis	Calculated from GIS provided by Spatial Dynamics.  Historic Length increased in reaches Identified by Bknox as decreased.	2/10/2004	4/17/2004	1		
7	Karleen Davis	December 2003 EDT Meetings	2/10/2004	2/13/2004			
8	Karleen Davis	Not applicable	2/12/2004	2/12/2004			
9	Karleen Davis	Toast Subbasin Planning EDQ data screen	2/12/2004	2/12/2004			
10	Karen Kuzis	Jeff Zakel Email - The info on fish pathogens in  Lookingglass cr. is clear as mud. The criteria in the EDT worksheets is reach, drainage and watershed in scale, depending on which # is picked .  Lookingglass has had fish (adult spring chinook) swim into the hatchery which were ID`d as whirling disease positive. We`ve never seen transmission into fish in the basin, never had an outbreak in the fish in the hatchery. It`s guess work to take the criteria a figure out what`s right. We`ve also had an outbreak of IHN in spring chinook at the hatchery about 10 years ago. It resulted in the loss of fish. I`d guess that 2 is the closest criteria. I didn`t choose 4 because our evidence shows that while returning adult spring chinook have been found occassionaly positive with whirling disease there is no evidence of transmission. If you get better clarity on the intent of the wording in #4 then it could also be the considered. Now you know what I know. Hope  this helps.	2/13/2004	2/13/2004			
11	K Kuzis	Calculated BY Sheryl Howe using regional Hydro Information	3/1/2004	3/8/2004	3		
12	K Kuzis	4-8 Meeting Revised Rating	3/1/2004	4/8/2004	4		
13	Kkuzis	No Bed Scour Data - Placed same value for T & C	3/1/2004	3/1/2004	5		
14	k kuzis	Del Grote Pomeroy Fish Biologist	3/1/2004	3/1/2004	4		
15	K Kuzis	Extrapolated data from DEQ database	3/2/2004	3/2/2004	2		
16	kkuzis	Filled in blank with estimated data?.	3/2/2004	3/2/2004	4		
17	Kkuzis	Educated Guess	3/2/2004	3/2/2004	5		
18	K Kuzis	1/15 Dave Crabtree/Lyle	3/4/2004	3/4/2004	4		
19	Kkuzis	Infered from nearby reaches - no data provided?.	3/5/2004	3/5/2004	5		
20	Kkuzis	B knox, C Menton Ecxel Input	3/5/2004	3/5/2004	4		
21	K Kuzis	Data was available for reaches in upper Grande Ronde and Wenaha.  All other Reaches infered.	3/5/2004	3/5/2004	3		
22	Kkuzis	Ratings derived from Compendium of Chinook Spawning and current & Historic Redd survey data	3/5/2004	3/5/2004			
23	Kkuzis	ODEQ Data, FS data - see documentation notes for details	3/6/2004	3/6/2004			
24	Kkuzis	December Meetings - Need Info for Wallowa	3/8/2004	3/8/2004	4		
25	Kkuzis	December EDT Ratings verified with measured data	3/8/2004	3/8/2004	2		
26	Kkuzis	Expanded from Measured data see data documentation for specific reaches with data	3/8/2004	3/8/2004	2		
27	Kkuzis	See Habiata Calcs documentation to identify measured and derived values	3/8/2004	3/8/2004	2		
28	TOAST - Phil Roger	Data were compiled from the ODFW AIP by the TOAST team in 2003.	3/5/2004	3/5/2004	3	2	
29	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	3/17/2004	3/17/2004	3		99
30	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	3/17/2004	3/17/2004	3		99
31	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	3/17/2004	3/17/2004	3		99
32	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	3/17/2004	3/17/2004	3		99
33	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	3/17/2004	3/17/2004	3		99
34	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	3/17/2004	3/17/2004	3		99
35	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	3/17/2004	3/17/2004	3		99
36	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	3/17/2004	3/17/2004	3		99
37	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	4/5/2004	4/5/2004	3		99
38	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	4/5/2004	4/5/2004	3		99
39	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	4/7/2004	4/7/2004	3		99
40	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	4/7/2004	4/7/2004	3		99
41	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	4/9/2004	4/9/2004	3		99
42	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	4/9/2004	4/9/2004	3		99
43	Kkuzis	Changed from 4 to 3 based on discussion with L Lestelle.	4/15/2004	4/15/2004			
44	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	4/17/2004	4/17/2004	3		99
45	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	4/17/2004	4/17/2004	3		99
46	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	4/17/2004	4/17/2004	3		99
47	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	4/17/2004	4/17/2004	3		99
48	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	4/20/2004	4/20/2004	3		99
49	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	4/20/2004	4/20/2004	3		99
50	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	4/21/2004	4/21/2004	3		99
51	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	4/21/2004	4/21/2004	3		99
52	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	4/21/2004	4/21/2004	3		99
53	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	4/21/2004	4/21/2004	3		99
54	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	4/21/2004	4/21/2004	3		99
55	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	4/21/2004	4/21/2004	3		99
56	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	4/22/2004	4/22/2004	3		99
57	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	4/22/2004	4/22/2004	3		99
58	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	4/23/2004	4/23/2004	3		99
59	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	4/23/2004	4/23/2004	3		99
60	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	4/23/2004	4/23/2004	3		99
61	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	4/23/2004	4/23/2004	3		99
62	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	4/24/2004	4/24/2004	3		99
63	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	4/24/2004	4/24/2004	3		99
64	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	4/26/2004	4/26/2004	3		99
65	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	4/26/2004	4/26/2004	3		99
66	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	5/4/2004	5/4/2004	3		99
67	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	5/4/2004	5/4/2004	3		99
68	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	5/10/2004	5/10/2004	3		99
69	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	5/10/2004	5/10/2004	3		99
70	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	9/27/2005	9/27/2005	3		99
71	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	9/27/2005	9/27/2005	3		99
