Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1989-035-00 - Umatilla Hatchery Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1989-035-00 - Umatilla Hatchery Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Project Number:
1989-035-00
Title:
Umatilla Hatchery Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Summary:
Project Summary



Summer Steelhead
Production of summer steelhead has averaged approximately 146,600 smolts since 1992 (Table 1). This production level has resulted in a sport and tribal fisheries, but has only met the Master Plan adult return goal (5,500) in run year 2001-02 (Chess et al 2003). Elimination of the hatchery program would mostly likely result in closing of fishing opportunity in the Umatilla River.
Table 1. Summer steelhead reared at Umatilla Hatchery and released in the Umatilla Subbasin, 1988- 2005.
1992 184,800 1997 137,200 2002 127,200
1993 158,200 1998 137,400 2003 130,600
1994 154,800 1999 131,500 2004 156,100
1995 146,400 2000 153,700 2005 140,500
1996 146,700 2001 160,300 2006 *135,000
*Projected release number
Fall Chinook
Production of sub-yearling fall Chinook averaged 2.67 million between 1994 and 2000. The program was reduced starting with releases in 2001 due to poor adult returns to the Umatilla River, as well as, concerns of strays into the Snake River. Since 2001, the sub-yearling release has averaged approximately 621,000. Fall Chinook provide an established harvest opportunity for both sport and tribal fishers. Elimination of the hatchery program would result in fewer fish harvested (Table 2).
A portion of this project funds fish transfers from Bonneville Hatchery (John Day mitigation 480,000 yearlings) to CTUIR operated acclimation pond (Thornhollow).
This production level has not resulted in 12,000 adult return goal identified in the Master Plan. Only a few thousand adults have return to the Umatilla River from this program (Chess et al 2003).
Table 2. Fall Chinook reared at Umatilla Hatchery and released in the Umatilla Subbasin, 1994- 2005.
Release Year Umatilla-Sub-yearlings
1994 2,469,200 2000 3,030,000
1995 2,960,400 2001 648,000
1996 2,580,800 2002 620,000
1997 2,777,400 2003 625,600
1998 1,842,600 2004 608,600
1999 3,020,500 2005 603,500
Note: An additional production of 480,000 yearlings is provided through John Day mitigation.
Spring Chinook
Production goals have varied throughout this program with experimental releases of sub-yearling spring release, pre-smolt fall releases, and full term smolt releases of Chinook in the between 1992 and 1994 (Chess et al 2003). Evaluation of the program (1990-005-00) determined that full term smolt were most productive (Chess et al 2003). Since 1996, production has focused on smolt releases. Due to water limitations at Umatilla Hatchery, production has occurred at various Columbia River hatcheries (Table 3).
Currently, the spring Chinook production goal is 810,000 yearling (full term smolt) spring released smolts. Umatilla Hatchery goal is 600,000 smolts and 210,000 at Little White National Fish Hatchery (LWNFH).
This production level has resulted in both sport and tribal fisheries in the Umatilla River, as well as, contributed to the Columbia River fisheries. This program has not produced the 8,000 adult goal identified in the Master Plan; however, four to five thousand adults have returned annually between 2000 and 2003 (Chess et al 2003). Elimination of the hatchery program would mostly likely result in closing of fishing opportunity in the Umatilla River.

Table 3. Spring Chinook reared at Umatilla, Willard, Carson and Little White hatcheries, 1992- 2005.
Release Year Umatilla-yearlings Umatilla-subs Umatilla-presmolts Willard NFH Little White NFH-yearlings Carson
1992 205,400 1,250,200 234,300
1993 286,200 667,300 460,800
1994 381,100 839,300 378,200
1995 226,900
1996 383,400
1997 254,300 379.600
1998 360,000 294,200
1999 338,700 355,700
2000 513,900 354,300
2001 460,000 0 346,600
2002 493,240 0 374,700
2003 584,770 0 205,200
2004 494,500 0 375,000
2005 586,000 0 210,000
Note: Fish reared at Little White or Willard NH hatcheries were funded with project 1983-435-00; however, the transfers of yearling smolts to Imeques acclimation are funded by this project.
Coho
The Umatilla Hatchery does not produce Coho; however, a portion of this project funds the transfer of Coho smolts from Cascade and Oxbow Mitchell Act hatcheries to the Pendleton Acclimation facility. Approximately 1.5 million Coho are transferred annually (Table 4).

Table 4. Coho reared at Cascade and Oxbow hatcheries and released in the Umatilla Subbasin, 1992- 2005.
Release Year Cascade Oxbow HatcheryHerman Ponds
2000 1,048,000 513,000
2001 995,000 478,000
2002 1,079,000 542,000
2003 1,030,000 515,000
2004 1,050,000 506,000
2005 1,000,000 500,000
Note: Fish reared at Cascade and Oxbow hatcheries were funded through the Mitchell Act projects; however, the transfers of yearling smolts are funded by this project.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
1990
Ending FY:
2018
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Plateau Umatilla 100.00%
Purpose:
Artificial Production
Emphasis:
Supplementation
Focal Species:
Chinook - All Populations
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Snake River Fall ESU (threatened)
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESU
Coho - Lower Columbia River ESU (threatened)
Coho - Unspecified Population
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS (threatened)
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
None

No photos have been uploaded yet for this project.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2016 (Previous) $1,123,006 $1,123,006 $1,126,006 $1,126,006 $1,137,130

General $1,123,006 $1,126,006 $1,126,006 $1,137,130
FY2017 (Current) $1,123,006 $1,131,006 $1,130,706 $1,130,706 $796,203

General $1,123,006 $1,122,708 $1,122,708 $790,571
General - Within Year $8,000 $7,998 $7,998 $5,632
FY2018 (Next) $1,123,006 $1,123,006 $0 $0 $0

General $1,123,006 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 30-Jun-2017

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2016 - FY2018)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2016 Expense $1,123,006 From: General FY16 Initial Planning Budgets - Expense 05/22/2015
FY2017 Expense $1,123,006 From: General FY17 SOY Budgets 06/02/2016
FY2017 Expense $8,000 From: General - Within Year Umatilla Hatchery 04/04/2017
FY2018 Expense $1,123,006 From: General FY18 SOY Budgets 07/17/2017

Pending Budget Decision?  No


No Project Cost Share

FY2016 0 %
FY2015 0 %
FY2014 0 %
FY2013 0 %
FY2012 11 %
FY2011 10 %
FY2010 11 %
FY2009 13 %
FY2008 13 %
FY2007 12 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
74059 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1989-035-00 EXP UMATILLA HATCHERY O&M Issued $1,130,706 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):12
Completed:11
On time:11
Status Reports
Completed:56
On time:38
Avg Days Early:3

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
4120 20129, 24581, 29856, 35518, 38956, 44449, 50037, 55040, 59669, 63378, 66858, 70366, 74059 1989-035-00 UMATILLA HATCHERY O&M Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 03/2001 03/2001 Pending 56 156 21 0 0 177 100.00% 2
Project Totals 56 156 21 0 0 177 100.00% 2


Review: RME / AP Category Review

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 1989-035-00-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 1989-035-00
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1989-035-00
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Supports 2008 FCRPS BiOp
Comments: BiOp Workgroup Comments: No BiOp Work Group Comments

The BiOp RM&E Workgroups made the following determinations regarding the proposal's ability or need to support BiOp Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) RPAs. If you have questions regarding these RPA association conclusions, please contact your BPA COTR and they will help clarify, or they will arrange further discussion with the appropriate RM&E Workgroup Leads. BiOp RPA associations for the proposed work are: ()
All Questionable RPA Associations (50.7) and
All Deleted RPA Associations (0)
Proponent Response:

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1989-035-00-ISRP-20101015
Project: 1989-035-00 - Umatilla Hatchery Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1989-035-00
Completed Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The proponents answered the ISRP’s questions satisfactorily. Mostly the questions were more appropriate for other projects, not the Operations and Maintenance project, but the proponents answered that acclimation is widely accepted as effective, that there is a plan for management of Conservation and Harvest groups, and that even if adequate harvest cannot be provided by a self sustaining natural population, harvest is a goal of artificial production.

Qualifications:
The management plan for Conservation and Harvest groups should be more fully developed and tested and presented at the next ISRP review. The fate of Spring Chinook Natural Origin Returns (NOR), released upstream or taken upstream, should be described, as well as the fate of NOR Fall Chinook. The use of NOR in the Conservation broodstock might be limited such that it does not inhibit natural development of a self sustaining population, if this is the goal, by establishing a minimum required escapement. A decision tree on the use of NOR returns for hatchery broodstock and natural spawning is needed in the management plan.
First Round ISRP Date: 10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
First Round ISRP Comment:
This proposal is to fund production of salmon and steelhead for a hatchery program in the Umatilla River basin in support of subbasin plans. A recent innovation in 2009 is to create two groups of smolts, a “Conservation” group derived from natural origin returns and a “Harvest” group of smolts derived from hatchery origin returns. The two groups are to be reared and released at separate locations, the “Harvest” group low in the watershed where returning adults are expected to be vulnerable to fisheries and the “Conservation” group high in the watershed where returning adults are expected to be less vulnerable to fisheries and in better spawning habitat. The assumptions are that the “Conservation” group, relatively relieved of harvest pressure and sustained primarily by natural origin returns (i.e. an Integrated program in the sense of HSRG), will over generations adapt to the habitat high in the watershed and ultimately naturalize as a self sustaining population in the river and that the “Harvest” group (i.e. a Segregated program in the sense of HSRG) will be highly vulnerable to harvest in the lower river and will remain isolated from the “Conservation” group.


A response is requested on the following three items:

1. What has been the effect of supplementation on summer steelhead, fall Chinook, and spring Chinook in the basin? Is the project impeding or advancing recovery as part of RPA 39?

2. Explain how the new “Conservation” and “Harvest” broodstocks will be managed separately for their different goals.

3. Will the harvest needs in the basin (now to be met by the four-times larger “Harvest” broodstock) ever be satisfied by a future self-sustaining population? Are harvest needs in the basin being met now? If not, why not?

1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The purpose of the program is stated as artificial production with an emphasis on supplementation of summer steelhead, fall Chinook, and spring Chinook. The proposal numerically summarizes production of smolts and indicates that the program has produced fewer adults than the program goals (without giving actual numbers) and states for each of the three programs that “Elimination of the hatchery program would mostly likely result in closing of fishing opportunity” apparently a response to the ISRP 2007 review recommendation to eliminate or modify these failing programs.

Despite its centrality in the purpose of the program no information about the effect of supplementation by any of the three programs is given. No information is given about whether the project is impeding recovery as required by RPA 39

The ISRP review of the entire Umatilla program in 2006 (ISRP2007-15) noted that the program had not achieved its salmon or steelhead goals for either escapement or harvest and raised the concern “whether the long-term fitness of the (steelhead) population that has been supplemented has deteriorated from interbreeding with fish that have had parents (or grandparents) reared in a hatchery.” The ISRP recommended that the hatchery production components of the program “consider modifying the spring Chinook and steelhead program goals and eliminating the fall Chinook program.”

In response to this recommendation and in response to an HSRG review the Umatilla program changed production methods in 2009 to create two groups of smolts, a “conservation” group derived from natural origin returns and a “harvest” group of smolts derived from hatchery origin returns. The two groups are to be reared and released at separate locations, the “harvest” group low in the watershed where returning adults are expected to be vulnerable to fisheries and the “conservation” group high in the watershed where returning adults are expected to be less vulnerable to fisheries and in better spawning habitat. The critical assumption is that the “conservation” group, relatively relieved of harvest pressure and sustained primarily by natural origin returns, will over generations adapt to the habitat high in the watershed and ultimately naturalize as a sustaining population to the river.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

All accomplishments are described as numbers of juveniles reared and transferred. No indication is given of the resulting harvest or the resulting supplementation with respect to program goals. The proponents should provide information about progress toward program goals i.e. artificial production emphasizing supplementation.

Will the program’s management adapt to successful supplementation, i.e. re establishment of a sustainable natural population, by restraining harvest within the productivity of the natural population or will there be perpetual artificial production of harvest fish.

If releases of hatchery fish are not meeting goals for adult returns, is there information to suggest the causes for this?

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)

This project links closely with the four others in the Umatilla Restoration Program.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The deliverables are restricted to fish production, and no methods are described. How do the fish production deliverables relate to the Umatilla Program goals? How will the deliverables relate to the production of Conservation and Harvest subpopulations?
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1989-035-00-NPCC-20110124
Project: 1989-035-00 - Umatilla Hatchery Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-1989-035-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: Implement with conditions through 2016: Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications in 2012 contract; and Implementation subject to regional hatchery effects evaluation process described in programmatic recommendation #4.
Publish Date: 09/06/2011 BPA Response: Agree
BPA will work with sponsors and Umatilla Basin RME projects to address during next round of ISRP review.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #4 Hatchery Effectiveness—The management plan for Conservation and Harvest groups should be more fully developed and tested and presented at the next ISRP review. The fate of Spring Chinook Natural Origin Returns (NOR), released upstream or taken upstream, should be described, as well as the fate of NOR Fall Chinook. The use of NOR in the Conservation broodstock might be limited such that it does not inhibit natural development of a self sustaining population, if this is the goal, by establishing a minimum required escapement. A decision tree on the use of NOR returns for hatchery broodstock and natural spawning is needed in the management plan.
BPA Response to Council Condition #1: <no comment>
Council Condition #2 Qualification: The management plan for Conservation and Harvest groups should be more fully developed and tested and presented at the next ISRP review. The fate of Spring Chinook Natural Origin Returns (NOR), released upstream or taken upstream, should be described, as well as the fate of NOR Fall Chinook. The use of NOR in the Conservation broodstock might be limited such that it does not inhibit natural development of a self sustaining population, if this is the goal, by establishing a minimum required escapement. A decision tree on the use of NOR returns for hatchery broodstock and natural spawning is needed in the management plan.
.
BPA Response to Council Condition #2: <no comment>
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1989-035-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1989-035-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: No Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: Assume in mitigation for FCRPS (note some cost share from Idaho Power).

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1989-035-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1989-035-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1989-035-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1989-035-00 - Umatilla Hatchery Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The ISRP concludes that the Umatilla Program is too large and complex for a brief annual review and should receive an intensive overall review of all program elements and the progress that has been made in attaining project objectives (also see ISRP comments on Project 199000500 and on the "Umatilla Initiative" under proposal 198343600).

In general, the Program seems to be well organized but is not reaching its overall adult fish production goals. Release numbers are presented in a table but few data (text only) on adult returns and harvest are provided. Adult return goals have not been met for any of the species, a result of low smolt-to-adult survival. Some adaptive management is indicated in the spring chinook program (reductions). There is insufficient communication of program results and impacts, even if there is a separate M&E project.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1989-035-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1989-035-00 - Umatilla Hatchery Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: The project sponsors are to work with the Council and others to structure an ISRP/Council review of the coordinated subbasin activities in the Umatilla at some point in the next two years.

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Sandra Sovay Administrative Contact Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Scott Patterson Interested Party Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Curtis Chan Interested Party Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Jerilyn Irvine Administrative Contact Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Tracey Yerxa Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Amy Mai Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Brett Requa Supervisor Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Elisabeth Bowers Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Terry Blessing Project Lead Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife