FY 2000 proposal 20058

Additional documents

TitleType
20058 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleLeavenworth Hatchery Complex
Proposal ID20058
OrganizationBureau of Reclamation (BOR)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameDave Lynholm
Mailing addressP.O. Box 620 Grand Coulee, WA 99133-0620
Phone / email5096339501 / dlyngholm@pn.usbr.doi.gov
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinColumbia Cascade / Wenatchee
Short descriptionThe Leavenworth Fish Hatchery Complexprovides mitigation for for fish losses as a result of the construction of Grand Coulee Dam. It has 3 hatcheries, Leavenworth, Enitat and Winthrop.
Target speciesChinook Salmon, Steelhead Trout
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel $0
Fringe $0
Supplies $0
Operating Contract of O&M w/USFWS $630,000
$630,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$630,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$630,000
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Bureau of Reclamation Reclamations share of O&M increase (non power) $272,000 unknown

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Recommendation:
Do not fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Do not fund, technically inadequate proposal. Too many sections were blank. The proposal does not adequately describe how the identified problems will be solved.

Comments: This proposal is a request for additional funds to supplement funds already received from BPA's "reimbursable" account through a direct funding agreement. They are requesting additional funds because the hatchery facilities are in need of repair or replacement, and they are having trouble meeting hatchery objectives because of problems associated with diseases and insufficient water quality. Proposal objectives appear to be a mix of additional operation and maintenance costs for the 3 hatcheries plus more evaluation of hatchery programs and achievements. However, it is difficult to know if requested funds are strictly for operation and maintenance (i.e., improved facilities) or for monitoring and evaluation programs. There was not a clear explanation of how the water supply problems and water quality issues (including disease in the Methow hatchery) were going to be corrected. Sections 3, 4, and 9 were blank. It is difficult to know the current genetic structure of hatchery stocks as their origin includes fish from the mid and lower Columbia and the McKenzie River. The appendices showing releases and adult escapement could have been summarized as text rather than lengthy tables. The budget is hard to follow and very few details are provided as to how the money would be spent. Increases in the outyear costs are not justified. An evaluation of operations of this hatchery complex is needed. The proposal does not provide enough information to make an informed decision.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Technical Criteria 1: Met? yes - Include cost sharing it appears to be significant.

Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? no - The background seems to suggest that the main problems at hatcheries are lack of adequate water, deteriorating infrastructure and the need to develop strategies to minimize impacts on wild fish.

Milestone Criteria 3: Met? no - The goals, objectives and tasks are composed of rather vague terms, such as "Continue to develop….","Actively participate.." and "Cooperate with…" and contain few measurable objectives.

Resource Criteria 4: Met? no - There is some suggestion of developing strategies to minimize effects on wild fish and improving smolt-to-adult survival, but there is no information as to how these will be accomplished. The proposal also lacks past accomplishments, schedule of objective


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

BPA FWP is not the proper funding source for this project.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];