Return to Proposal Finder FY 2000 Proposal 198903500

Proposal Table of Contents

Additional Documents

Section 1. General Administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Objectives, tasks and schedules
Section 5. Budget
Section 6. References
Section 7. Abstract

Reviews and Recommendations
Title Type File Size File Date


Section 1. General Administrative Information

Title of Project Proposal Umatilla Hatchery Operation and Maintenance
BPA Project Proposal Number 198903500
Business name of agency, institution,
or organization requesting funding
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Business acronym (if appropriate) ODFW
 

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

Name Bruce Eddy
Mailing Address 107 20th St.
City, State, Zip La Grande, OR 97850
Phone 5419632138
Fax 5039636670
E-mail beddy@oregontrail.net
 
Manager of program authorizing this project
 
Review Cycle FY 2000
Province Columbia Plateau
Subbasin Umatilla
 
Short Description Restore Umatilla River Chinook and steelhead fisheries and populations through release of subyearling and yearling smolts produced at Umatilla Hatchery
Target Species Spring Chinook, fall Chinook and summer steelhead


Project Location

[No information]


Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-Reported Relevant RPAs

Sponsor listed no RPAs for this project proposal

Relevant RPAs based upon NMFS & BPA Review

NMFS and BPA did not associate any reasonable and prudent alternatives with this project proposal


NPPC Program Measure Number(s) which this project addresses: 7.2.D.3 and 7.4I
FWS/NMFS Biological Opinion Number(s) which this project addresses: Umatilla Hatchery operation is addressed by the NMFS Biological Opinion for 1995-98 Hatchery Operations in the Columbia River Basin, Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation.
Other Planning Document References Wy-Kan-Ush-Me-Wa-Kush-Wit, vol.II.; The Umatilla Hatchery Master Plan (ODFW and CTUIR, 1990); The Umatilla River Subbasin Salmon and Steelhead Plan (ODFW and CTUIR, 1989); and The Umatilla Basin Project-Initial Project Work plan (USBR and BPA 1989).


CBFWA-Generated Information

Database Administrator notes on the history of this proposal form: None
Type of Project (assigned by CBFWA Analysts): anadromous


Section 2. Past Accomplishments

Year Accomplishment
1991 First year of operation
1992 Released 2.68M subyearling fall Chinook, 267k fry and 1.06 subyearling spring Chinook, and 204k smolt summer steelhead
1993 Released 2.66M subyearling fall Chinook, 1.13 subyearling and 208k smolt spring Chinook, and 159k smolt summer steelhead
1994 Released 2.85M subyearling fall Chinook, 840k subyearling and 594k smolt spring Chinook, and and 156k smolt summer steelhead
1995 Released 2.47M subyearling fall Chinook, 277k smolt spring Chinook, and 148k smolt summer steelhead
1996 Released 2.97M subyearling and 144k smolt fall Chinook, 381k smolt spring Chinook, and 149k smolt summer steelhead
1997 Released 2.83M subyearling and 260k smolt fall Chinook, 227k smolt spring Chinook, and 140k summer steelhead
1998 Released 2.78 subyearling fall Chinook, 383 smolt spring Chinook, and 138k smolt summer steelhead


Section 3. Relationships to Other Projects

Project ID Title Description Umbrella
9000501 Umatilla and Walla Walla Basin Natural Production M&E Project. Yes
9000500 Umatilla Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation Yes
8802200 Trap and Haul in the Umatilla and Walla Walla Basins Yes
8343500 Operate and Maintain Umatilla Hatchery Satellite Facilities Yes
8902401 Evaluate Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Umatilla River. Yes
8903500 Umatilla Hatchery Operation and Maintenance (this proposal) Yes
20516 Umatilla Subbasin Umbrella Yes


Section 4. Objectives, Tasks and Schedules

Objectives and Tasks

Objective Task
1. Coordinate Umatilla Hatchery operations with co-managers a. Develop Annual Operating Plan (AOP) directing Umatilla Hatchery operation and co-manager activities
1. b. Participate in periodic Umatilla Hatchery operations reviews, Umatilla Research reviews and quarterly basin oversight meetings with co-managers to coordinate activities.
2. Produce 150k smolt Umatilla stock summer steelhead a. Collect broodstock at Three Mile and transport to holding area
2. b. Spawn at holding area and transport eggs to Umatilla Hatchery for incubation
2. c. Trough and pond fry and juvenile per production schedule
2. d. Fin clip and CWT
2. e. Transport to acclimation facilities for release
2. f. Perform fish health (i.e. inspection, treatment, etc.), culture (i.e. feeding, pond cleaning, etc.) and facility maintenance on a scheduled and as needed basis.
3. Produce 360k smolt spring Chinook a. Collect broodstock at Three Mile and transport to holding area
3. b. Spawn at holding area and transport eggs to Umatilla Hatchery for incubation
3. c. Trough and pond fry and juvenile per production schedule
3. d. Fin clip and CWT
3. e. Transport to acclimation facilities for release
3. f. Perform fish health (i.e. inspection, treatment, etc.), culture (i.e. feeding, pond cleaning, etc.) and facility maintenance on a scheduled and as needed basis.
4. Produce 2.68M subyearling fall Chinook a. Collect broodstock and hold at remote sites
4. b. Spawn at holding area and transport eggs to Umatilla Hatchery for incubation
4. c. Trough and pond fry and juvenile per production schedule
4. d. Fin clip and CWT
4. e. Transport to acclimation facilities for release
4. f. Perform fish health (i.e. inspection, treatement, etc.), culture (i.e. feeding, pond cleaning, etc.) and facility maintenance on a scheduled and as needed basis.

Objective Schedules and Costs

Objective Start Date End Date Measurable Biological Objectives Milestone FY 2000 Cost %
1 10/01/99 09/01/00 N/A AOP development 10.0%
2 10/01/99 09/01/00 Produce 150k smolt Umatilla stock summer steelhead Release of acclimated smolts 22.0%
3 10/01/99 09/01/00 Produce 360k smolt spring Chinook Release of acclimated smolts 36.0%
4 10/01/99 09/01/00 Produce 2.68M subyearling fall Chinook Release of acclimated subyearlings 32.0%


Section 5. Estimated Budget Summary

Itemized Budget

Item Note FY 2000 Cost
Personnel Salaries $263,260
Fringe OPE @ 36% permanent, 45% Seasonal $100,038
Supplies $ 72,405
Operating $223,743
Capital $ 27,500
Indirect @ 35.5% $208,400
Total Itemized Budget $895,346


Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 project cost $895,346
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA Funds $ 0
Total FY 2000 budget request $895,346
FY 2000 forecast from 1999 $ 0
% change from forecast 0.0%


Reason for change in estimated budget

Not applicable


Reason for change in scope

Not applicable


Cost Sharing

Not applicable
 

Outyear Budget Totals

2001 2002 2003 2004
All Phases $881,562 $917,559 $944,335 $971,915
Total Outyear Budgets $881,562 $917,559 $944,335 $971,915
 

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.


Section 6. References

Reference Watershed?
Carmichael, R.W. In press. Straying of Umatilla River hatchery origin fall chinook salmon into the Snake River. In Genetic effects of Straying of Non-Native Hatchery Fish into Natural Populations (R.S. Waples, convenor). National Oceanic and Atmospheri No
Contor, C.R., E. Hoverson, and P. Kissner. 1995. Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation. Annual Progress Report 1993-1994 sent to BPA, Portland Oregon. No
Contor, C.R., E. Hoverson, and P. Kissner. 1996. Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation. Annual Progress Report 1994-1995 sent to BPA, Portland Oregon. No
Contor, C.R., E. Hoverson, and P. Kissner. 1997. Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation. Annual Progress Report 1995-1996 sent to BPA, Portland Oregon. No
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. 1996, Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi-Wa- Kish-Wit. The Columbia River Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan of the Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Yakima Tribes. Portland, Oregon. Yes
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1990. Umatilla River Subbasin – Salmon and Steelhead plan. Prepared for the NPPC, Portland, Oregon. Yes
CTUIR & ODFW 1994. Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation. Annual Progress Report 1992-1993 sent to the BPA, Portland, Oregon. No
Focher, S.M., R.W. Carmichael, M.C. Hayes, and R.W. Stonecypher, Jr. 1997. Umatilla hatchery monitoring and evaluation. 1996 annual progress report to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. No
Groberg, W.J., Jr., N.L. Hurtado, S.T. Onjukka, and K. Waln. 1996a. Report B: Fish Health Monitoring and Evaluation in Umatilla Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation. Annual progress report to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. No
Groberg, W.J., Jr., S.T. Onjukka, and K. Waln. 1996b. Report B: Fish Health Monitoring and Evaluation in Umatilla Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation. Annual progress report to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. No
Hayes, M.C., S.M. Knapp, and A.A. Nigro. 1992. Evaluation of juvenile fish bypass and adult fish passage facilities at water diversions in the Umatilla River. Annual and interim progress reports. DOE/BP-10385-2, B No
Hayes, M.C., R.W. Carmichael, S.M. Focher, N.L. Hurtado, M.L. Keefe, G.W. Love, W.J. Groberg, Jr., S.T. Onjukka, and K. Waln. 1996a. Umatilla Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation. Annual progress report to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Orego No
Hayes, M.C., R.W. Carmichael, S.M. Focher, W.J. Groberg, Jr., S.T. Onjukka, R.W. Stonecypher, Jr., and K. Waln. 1996b. Umatilla Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation. Annual progress report to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. No
Hayes, M.C., R.W. Carmichael, M.L. Keefe, and T.A. Whitesel. (1997). Accuracy of length estimates for chinook salmon and steelhead in compartmented and standard hatchery raceways. Progressive Fish Culturist 59:285-292 No
Hayes, M. and G. Rowan. 1998. Is there a difference in survival and health between different rearing and release strategies. Umatilla Basin Research and Management Review January 27 and 28, 1998. Mission, Oregon. No
IHOT, 1995. Operation Plans for Anadromous Fish Production Facilities in the Columbia River Basin. Vol. II, Oregon. No
Keefe, M.L., R.W. Carmichael, R.A. French, W.J. Groberg, and M.C. Hayes. 1993. Umatilla hatchery monitoring and evaluation. Annual progress report to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. No
Keefe, M.L., R.W. Carmichael, S.M. Focher, W.J. Groberg, and M.C. Hayes. 1994. Umatilla hatchery monitoring and evaluation. Annual progress report to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. No
Knapp, S.M., J.C. Kern, W.A. Cameron, S.M. Snedaker, and R.W. Carmichael. 1997. Evaluation of juvenile salmonid outmigration and survival in the lower Umatilla River basin. Annual progress report to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. No
NPPC (Northwest Power Planning Council). 1987. Columbia River basin fish and wildlife program (as amended). Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon. No
NPPC (Northwest Power Planning Council). 1989. Staff Issue Paper. Umatilla Hatchery Master Plan. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon. No
NPPC (Northwest Power Planning Council). 1994. Columbia River basin fish and wildlife program. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon. No
ODFW and CTUIR. 1998. Umatilla Hatchery and Basin Annual Operating Plan for the period of October 1, 1998 - September 30, 1999. ODFW, La Grande, Oregon No
USBR (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation) and BPA (Bonneville Power Administration). 1989. Umatilla basin project. Initial project workplan presented to the Northwest Power Planning Council, May 1989. Yes


Section 7. Abstract

Abstract


Reviews and Recommendations

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

ISRP Preliminary Review , ISRP 99-2 Recommendation:
Delay Funding
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Recommendation: Delay funding until the proposal addresses the specific deficiencies noted in the comments. The project should be included in an Independent Programmatic Review of the Umatilla and Walla Walla hatchery programs.

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.


CBFWA: Nonwatershed Technical Group Comments Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Technical Criteria 1: Met? NA -

Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? yes - Well prepared.

Milestone Criteria 3: Met? yes -

Resource Criteria 4: Met? yes -


CBFWA: Subregional Team Comments Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Costs reduced as a result of improved efficiencies.

CBFWA Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
2000
$850,000
Comment:

ISRP Final Review , ISRP 99-4 Recommendation:
Fund existing activities
Date:
Oct 29, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:
Fund existing activities.

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.


NWPPC Funding Recommendation Recommendation:
Fund existing activities
Date:
Nov 8, 1999
[There are no budget numbers associated with this review.]
Comment:

NWPPC Funding Recommendation , NWPPC 2000-6 Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
2000
$850,000
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]; Address ISRP comments in BPA contract

NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review Funding category:
expense
Date:
May 2005
FY05 NPCC Start of Year:
$875,000
FY06 NPCC Staff Preliminary:
$875,000
FY06 NPCC July Draft Start of Year:
$875,000
Sponsor (ODFW) Comments (Go to Original on NPCC Website):

Return to top of page