FY 2000 proposal 20058
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Leavenworth Hatchery Complex |
| Proposal ID | 20058 |
| Organization | Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Dave Lynholm |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 620 Grand Coulee, WA 99133-0620 |
| Phone / email | 5096339501 / dlyngholm@pn.usbr.doi.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Wenatchee |
| Short description | The 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 species | Chinook Salmon, Steelhead Trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 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 forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash 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];