FY 2000 proposal 198903500

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

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Umatilla Hatchery is operated below design capacity because its wells do not reach design volume. Current production goals refeclt these constraints. It is unclear when or if this constraint can be resolved.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: The proposal notes that the hatchery water supply is only one-third the volume that formed the basis for planning and design of the facility and its associated projects. The experience of the reviewers is that overestimating available water supplies is not an uncommon occurrence. It reflects undue haste in proceeding with construction without necessary "ground truth" information. Water supplies should be assured prior to construction of any hatchery or satellite facilities.

The entire Umatilla Program should be reviewed by Council to see whether it is time to shift its emphasis. The hatchery water supply is warmer than anticipated. Survival of hatchery fish is one-tenth of that expected. There appears to be more weight in fish released than returning. This could result as a natural process in response to a focus on measurement of success in terms of smolts released, rather than adult contributions.

Comment:

Comment:

Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? yes - Well prepared.

Milestone Criteria 3: Met? yes -

Resource Criteria 4: Met? yes -

Comment:

Comment:

Programmatic Comments and Recommendation for Umatilla and Walla Walla project in Response Review:

Fund to maintain and monitor existing operations in the Umatilla and Walla Walla until a province level review. (8903500; 9000500; 8343500; 8802200; 8343600; 8902700; 9000501; 8710001; 20139; 9901100; 20127) Do not fund planning, construction or development of new facilities in the Umatilla or Walla Walla until the province level review is complete (8805302, 20138). Future funding must be contingent on the outcome of the review.

In its June 15 report, the ISRP recommended that the entire Umatilla Program should be reviewed by the Council to see whether it is time to shift its emphasis. In response, the co-managers stated "The co-managers agree that a thorough review of the Umatilla Program is warranted... Given the investment of time and money into the fish currently being produced for FY 2000, it seems most prudent to conduct a Umatilla Program review while continuing to operate the hatchery as approved under the Master Plan." The ISRP concurs with this conclusion. A full-scale programmatic review should be scheduled within the first two years of the rolling province level reviews. A timetable for this review and subsequent decisions is highly recommended. There are overarching policy questions that must be addressed in such a process, such as at what point do you stop or shift emphasis at major facilities, and how?

Because the hatchery and its supporting programs are production facilities (with live fish on hand), funding for their operations and supporting programs should continued pending the results of comprehensive review. In this regard the ISRP questions the wisdom of initiating new programs or construction before the comprehensive review is carried out. We therefore recommend continuing funding at a base level, with no new construction.

Moreover, the responses to projects 8805302 "Plan, Site, Design and Construct NEOH Hatchery - Umatilla/Walla Walla Component" and 20138 "Design And Construct NEOH Walla Walla Hatchery" have not convinced the reviewers that these hatchery plans will successfully re-build the wild chinook population, particularly in light of harvests, which are likely underestimated, and the problems at Umatilla hatchery (extremely low survival and return). Perhaps the subsequent reviews which the response indicates are to follow will provide the further study required, although the reviewers suspect these are mainly to address operational details and less directed at overall feasibility. If constructed, and not able to meet the intended purpose, what do you do with these facilities? Success is contingent upon better survival conditions. The question remains as to whether these funds are better directed at addressing methods to improve wild fish survival in natural habitat (counterbalance the poor marine survival conditions by improving the freshwater stage of the life history) or through release of hatchery fish to re-build the wild population, or both. If it is to be the latter, there is insufficient information in the proposal to justify funding these proposals. It is not clear in the proposal or the response to the review of this project that the goal of re-establishing wild chinook can be achieved. A model of population re-structuring, given current survivals, might assist, but evidence from reviews in nearby basins (Snake River, Mundy 1999) points to the serious constraints.

The level of concern evident here by the reviewers and the co-managers adds to the concerns for other existing and planned hatchery facilities. A more comprehensive review and evaluation of all basin facilities is required.

The reviewers specifically noted that many of the responses do not specifically address scientific concerns as is appropriate in an annual peer review of performance. Rather, the responses rely on references to planning documents to justify the program.

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website