FY 2000 proposal 198903500
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
Title | Type |
---|---|
198903500 Narrative | Narrative |
198903500 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Umatilla Hatchery Operation and Maintenance |
Proposal ID | 198903500 |
Organization | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Bruce Eddy |
Mailing address | 107 20th St. La Grande, OR 97850 |
Phone / email | 5419632138 / beddy@oregontrail.net |
Manager authorizing this project | |
Review cycle | FY 2000 |
Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / 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
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
RPA |
---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|
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 |
---|---|---|
9000501 | Umatilla and Walla Walla Basin Natural Production M&E Project. | |
9000500 | Umatilla Hatchery Monitoring and Evaluation | |
8802200 | Trap and Haul in the Umatilla and Walla Walla Basins | |
8343500 | Operate and Maintain Umatilla Hatchery Satellite Facilities | |
8902401 | Evaluate Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Umatilla River. | |
8903500 | Umatilla Hatchery Operation and Maintenance (this proposal) | |
20516 | Umatilla Subbasin Umbrella |
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 | 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 |
$895,346 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 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% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|
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:
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.
Comment:
Comment:
Technical Criteria 1: Met? NA -Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? yes - Well prepared.
Milestone Criteria 3: Met? yes -
Resource Criteria 4: Met? yes -
Comment:
Costs reduced as a result of improved efficiencies.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.
Comment:
Comment:
[Decision made in 11-3-99 Council Meeting]; Address ISRP comments in BPA contractNW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
$875,000 | $875,000 | $875,000 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website