FY 2000 proposal 20523

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: A subbasin programmatic review is needed prior to multi-year funding of individual projects. The measure of success currently specified for individual projects does not provide a means of true evaluation. "Success" needs to be specified in the context of the overall program. For example, the individual projects under this umbrella ought to include the following 12 projects: 1) (20523) Multi-Year Plan Umatilla Subbasin Anadromous Fish Plan; 2) (20516) Umatilla Subbasin Umbrella; 3) (8903500) Umatilla Hatchery Operation and Maintenance; 4) (9000500) Umatilla Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation; 5) (8343500) Operate and Maintain Umatilla Hatchery Satellite Facilities; 6) (8805302) Plan, Site, Design and Construct Neoh Hatchery – Umatilla/Walla Walla Component.; 7) (83443600) Umatilla Passage Facilities O & M; 8) (8902700) Power Repay Umatilla Basin Project; 9) (8902401) Evaluate Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla; 10) (9000501) Umatilla River Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation; 11) (8710001) Enhance Umatilla River Basin Anadromous Fish Habitat; 12) (8710002) Protect and Enhance Anadromous Fish Habitat in the Umatilla River Subbasin.

The relationships among many of these projects are described in the Multi-Year Plan Umatilla Subbasin Anadromous Fish Plan. The Umatilla Subbasin Umbrella specifies that the goals of the overall program are returns of 4,000 naturally produced and 5,670 hatchery produced steelhead, 1,000 naturally produced and 10,000 hatchery produced spring chinook. 11,000 naturally produced and 10,000 hatchery produced fall chinook, and annual return of 6,000 coho. The Umbrella identifies six strategies to be used in attaining the objectives. The 12 projects are associated with the strategies.

The problem with the current system of evaluation is that each project has its own independent measure of performance, and that measure, while it may be inferred to have a relationship to the specified subbasin objectives, has no explicit relationship. For example, the Power Repay Project (8902700) reports accomplishments in terms of dollars spent to pump water from the Columbia River, purportedly to replace water that might have been withdrawn for irrigation at Three Mile Dam. But there is no report of the amount of water pumped, nor more particularly of the amount of water that was made available in the Umatilla River as a result of this supposed substitution. Similarly, taken in the context of Project 8802200, the "trap and haul" operation in which adult salmon and steelhead are trapped at Three Mile Dam and hauled either upstream or to the hatchery for use as brood stock, it seems insufficient to report on the numbers of fish trapped and hauled, when the question is whether or not it is still necessary to haul the fish upstream – if there is water in the river. That brings up the question of why no fish passage facilities are provided at McKay Dam at river mile 6. And if there are no fish passage facilities at McKay Dam why bother to put water in the river below Three Mile Dam? And if there is not water in the river, then why pay to pump water from the Columbia River into the irrigation canal? The reviewers are left attempting to develop a reasonable scenario out of acts that do not seem to fit together as they should.

The entire subbasin effort should be included in one project, with one person in charge who is responsible for annual evaluation of the measures included under the strategies being employed (now separate projects with their own independent lives)/ Progress toward attaining the subbasin objectives should be evaluated in terms of the overall objectives, rather than narrow project accomplishments, e.g. number of smolts released by the hatchery. The person in charge should make decisions about whether or not it is productive to continue a particular approach now being followed as part of a particular strategy. That person could also evaluate prospects of success in achieving the objectives given external limiting factors. For example, a key limiting factor in restoration efforts might be the high (80%) fishing rate on fall chinook in the ocean and mainstem Columbia that was reported. There is no mention of regulation of fisheries among the six strategies identified for restoration.

Comment:

Comment: