Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 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:
2004
Ending FY:
2024
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 - Lower Columbia River ESU
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Snake River Fall ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESU
Coho - Lower Columbia River ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS
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"

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2023 - FY2025)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2023 Expense $1,290,888 From: General FY23 SOY Budget Upload 06/01/2022
FY2023 Expense $63,033 From: General ODFW FY23 Adjustments 08/26/2022
FY2023 Expense $295,028 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) ODFW Umatilla Hatchery 10/13/2022
FY2023 Expense $490,245 From: General Budget Transfers (various via BCR process) 6/26/2023 06/26/2023
FY2024 Expense $1,446,553 From: General ODFW FY24 SOY Budgets 09/05/2023
FY2024 Expense $275,946 From: General Sept 28 Budget Transfers 09/29/2023
FY2024 Expense $9,195 From: General 1989-035-00 FY24 12/08/2023

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2024   DRAFT
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012 $130,000 11%
2011 $125,000 10%
2010 $125,000 11%
2009 $142,000 13%
2008 $147,000 13%
2007 $130,000 12%

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Closed, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
294 REL 2 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1989-035-00 UMATILLA HATCHERY O&M Terminated $828,119 10/1/2000 - 9/30/2001
4120 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1989-035-00 UMATILLA HATCHERY O&M Closed $3,031,897 3/23/2001 - 9/30/2004
20129 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife PI 198903500 UMATILLA HATCHERY O & M Closed $868,341 11/1/2004 - 9/30/2005
24581 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1989-035-00 EXP UMATILLA HATCHERY O&M Closed $874,257 10/1/2005 - 9/30/2006
29856 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1989-035-00 EXP UMATILLA HATCHERY O&M Closed $936,612 10/1/2006 - 9/30/2007
35518 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1989-035-00 EXP UMATILLA HATCHERY O&M Closed $966,661 10/1/2007 - 9/30/2008
38956 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1989-035-00 EXP UMATILLA HATCHERY O&M Closed $936,606 10/1/2008 - 9/30/2009
44449 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1989-035-00 EXP UMATILLA HATCHERY O&M Closed $1,048,864 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
50037 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1989-035-00 EXP UMATILLA HATCHERY O&M Closed $1,067,360 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
55040 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1989-035-00 EXP UMATILLA HATCHERY O&M Closed $1,095,616 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
59669 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1989-035-00 EXP UMATILLA HATCHERY O&M Closed $1,055,274 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
63378 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1989-035-00 EXP UMATILLA HATCHERY O&M Closed $1,095,160 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
66858 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1989-035-00 EXP UMATILLA HATCHERY O&M Closed $1,091,193 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
70366 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1989-035-00 EXP UMATILLA HATCHERY O&M (ODFW) Closed $1,123,006 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
74059 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1989-035-00 EXP UMATILLA HATCHERY O&M Closed $1,130,706 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
BPA-010315 Bonneville Power Administration FY17 TBL charges Active $1,590 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
74313 REL 4 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1989-035-00 EXP UMATILLA HATCHERY O&M Closed $1,200,345 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
BPA-010169 Bonneville Power Administration FY18 - options analysis for electrical upgrades/Umatilla Hatchery Active $6,212 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
78523 SOW Umatilla Electric Cooperative 198903500 FY18 114396010 Closed $48,871 2/1/2018 - 9/30/2018
74313 REL 34 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1989-035-00 EXP UMATILLA HATCHERY O&M Closed $1,044,577 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
80428 SOW Umatilla Electric Cooperative FY19 114396001 Closed $70,926 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
74313 REL 59 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1989-035-00 EXP UMATILLA HATCHERY O&M Closed $1,067,039 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020
83454 SOW Umatilla Electric Cooperative 1989-027-00 FY20 METER 114396001 Closed $59,932 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020
74313 REL 82 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1989-035-00 EXP UMATILLA HATCHERY O&M Closed $1,121,328 10/1/2020 - 9/30/2021
86259 SOW Umatilla Electric Cooperative 1989-027-00 FY21 METER 114396001 Closed $83,177 10/1/2020 - 9/30/2021
74313 REL 102 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1989-035-00 EXP UMATILLA HATCHERY O&M Closed $1,391,751 10/1/2021 - 12/31/2022
88772 SOW Umatilla Electric Cooperative 1989-027-00 FY22 METER 114396001 Closed $64,853 10/1/2021 - 9/30/2022
82120 REL 6 SOW Terraphase Engineering, Inc. 1989-035-00 EXP UMATILLA HATCHERY WELL REHABILITATION Closed $109,096 4/29/2022 - 10/31/2022
84041 REL 10 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1989-035-00 EXP UMATILLA HATCHERY O&M Issued $2,032,342 10/1/2022 - 9/30/2023
90767 SOW Umatilla Electric Cooperative 1989-027-00 UMATILLA HATCHERY FY23 METER Closed $58,473 10/1/2022 - 9/30/2023
BPA-013453 Bonneville Power Administration FY23 PIT tags Active $9,996 10/1/2022 - 9/30/2023
84041 REL 29 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1989-035-00 EXP UMATILLA HATCHERY O&M Issued $1,631,698 10/1/2023 - 9/30/2024
93484 SOW Umatilla Electric Cooperative 1989-035-00 UMATILLA HATCHERY FY24 METER Issued $90,000 10/1/2023 - 9/30/2024
BPA-013840 Bonneville Power Administration FY24 PIT Tags Active $9,996 10/1/2023 - 9/30/2024



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):24
Completed:22
On time:22
Status Reports
Completed:83
On time:50
Avg Days Late:0

                Count of Contract Deliverables
Earliest Contract Subsequent Contracts Title Contractor Earliest Start Latest End Latest Status Accepted Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
4120 20129, 24581, 29856, 35518, 38956, 44449, 50037, 55040, 59669, 63378, 66858, 70366, 74059, 74313 REL 4, 74313 REL 34, 74313 REL 59, 74313 REL 82, 74313 REL 102, 84041 REL 10, 84041 REL 29 1989-035-00 EXP UMATILLA HATCHERY O&M Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 03/23/2001 09/30/2024 Issued 83 250 27 0 3 280 98.93% 4
BPA-10315 FY17 TBL charges Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2016 09/30/2017 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-10169 FY18 - options analysis for electrical upgrades/Umatilla Hatchery Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2017 09/30/2018 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-13453 FY23 PIT tags Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2022 09/30/2023 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-13840 FY24 PIT Tags Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2023 09/30/2024 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 83 250 27 0 3 280 98.93% 4


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1989-035-00-NPCC-20230310
Project: 1989-035-00 - Umatilla Hatchery Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Approved Date: 4/15/2022
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Bonneville and Sponsor to consider condition #1 (production), #2 (evaluation), #3 (density), and #4 (retention time), and address in project documentation if appropriate. This project supports hatchery mitigation authorized under the Northwest Power Act (Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program) for the Umatilla Hatchery program. See Policy Issue I.b., II.a. and II.b.

[Background: See https://www.nwcouncil.org/2021-2022-anadromous-habitat-and-hatchery-review/]

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1989-035-00-ISRP-20230309
Project: 1989-035-00 - Umatilla Hatchery Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Completed Date: 3/14/2023
Final Round ISRP Date: 2/10/2022
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

In the ISRP’s preliminary review, we requested point-by-point responses on the topics listed below. The ISRP also requested a revised proposal. Unfortunately, the responses mostly were vague and of limited utility for assessing scientific merit of the actions proposed. Moreover, the proponents did not provide a revised proposal incorporating the requested information and the original proposal remains incomplete. As a result, the original proposal and the responses to the issues raised by the ISRP’s review do not meet scientific review criteria. However, some of the information requested by the ISRP to make the project a scientifically supported project and documented in a stand-alone proposal may be found in other Umatilla subbasin project descriptions (specifically, 199000500 and 199000501, which received recommendation as Meets Scientific Review Criteria following their responses). Therefore, the ISRP recommends four conditions that the proponents of this project will need to address more comprehensively in the next annual report and work plan:

  1. Proposed production
  2. Project evaluation and adjustment
  3. Density dependence
  4. Evidence for reduced retention time

Detailed conditions and comments based on the response are provided after each topic.

1. Proposed production

Condition: Please provide a more thorough explanation of the history of production and broodstock changes for each of the species and runs produced, distributed, and released. This explanation should include the rationale and supporting scientific basis for proposed production levels to meet program goals. The proponents should examine other project proposals in the subbasin (specifically 199000500 and 199000501) and confer with those proponents to ensure consistency.

Comment: As a hatchery production (O&M) project for the Umatilla Fish Hatchery, the project’s goals and actions are part of a larger framework for producing and returning coho salmon, Chinook salmon, and steelhead to the subbasin at harvestable levels. The ISRP seeks a more specific description of this project’s role within this larger framework. For example, the proponents responded, “the Coho program was reduced by half in 2017 and the remaining production has been released on the Lostine River as agreed to by co-managers.” A number of questions need to be addressed. First, why was coho salmon production reduced in 2017? Next, why were releases shifted to the Lostine River? Had Umatilla coho populations measurably responded to alleviate the need for supplementation? Is there evidence to support the conclusion that Umatilla coho salmon are genetically compatible with Lostine populations, and how is this shift consistent with an appropriate HGMP? Finally, the “agreement by the co-managers” warrants a more expanded explanation, especially if it was part of a formal adaptive management process.

Further, the response states “[t]he fall Chinook programs have been reduced to reduce potential straying and also due to lack of rearing water.” A lack of water for fall Chinook salmon is noted in the original proposal, and for spring Chinook salmon as well. However, the concern about straying requires additional explanation with greater detail. Is there evidence for straying from the Umatilla subbasin? If so, to what other subbasins and at what rate? How does production scale (i.e., size of the program) affect straying rates?

Finally, the response states, ”[t]he summer steelhead program remains unchanged.” Yet, the original proposal indicates that the program was altered beginning in 2014 from a Segregated program to an Integrated Harvest program, at least in part due to limits on rearing space needed to maintain segregated groups. Also, the ISRP requested a response regarding a proposed shift to substitute 17 HOR females as brood to achieve production levels. Given the small number of NOR female fish required to fill this need, it is unclear why using HOR females is necessary, especially considering that studies have documented reductions in fitness caused by hatchery broodstock relative to wild brood (e.g., Christie et al. 2014). A future response to this issue and explanation of the project’s decision in an annual report will require coordination with co-managers because it is apparently under discussion.

The ISRP suggests that the proponents could examine the responses provided by projects 199000500 and 199000501 for the level of detail we seek. Those responses provide a sufficient level of detail of the ongoing discussions related to this issue. The ISRP recommends including the history of the changes along with the reasons for the changes in future annual reports.

2. Project evaluation and adjustment

Condition: Please provide a more thorough description of the evaluation and adjustment process for this project (i.e., adaptive management). As described above, the Umatilla Fish Hatchery has experienced several changes in husbandry and production throughout its history and especially over the past decade. These past and proposed modifications presumably are based on biological and/or practical operational concerns. These reasons need to be explained in one or two concise paragraphs, along with a table and linked references if warranted. Because the proponents may need to confer with co-managers, this description should be included in annual work plans or reports.

Comment: The proponents’ response does not directly address the ISRP’s request about the adaptive management decision process. ISRP requested, “a coordinated response among the proponents (at the Umatilla Fish Hatchery) and the resource co-managers explaining the decisions to abandon the natural broodstock for Chinook salmon and shift away from restoring natural production. The ISRP requests a description (or map with data) of the out-of-basin sources for brood, eggs, or young.” In the response to 1. Proposed production, the proponents indicate that local broodstock is used “when available.” The purpose of the response request is to understand the pattern of out-of-subbasin sources when local broodstock are not available.

3. Density dependence

Condition: The proponents suggest other projects (e.g., Umatilla Hatchery M&E #199000500, for example) are better suited to address the issue. The ISRP requests this project coordinate with those project proponents and summarize a response in the next annual work plan and annual report.

Comment: This ISRP request and the proponents’ response highlight the rationale for requesting the M&E matrix to allow understanding the overarching framework for work being done in a subbasin. In cases where the proponents of this project suggest that other projects are better suited to address the issues, the ISRP requests that proponents of this proposal consult and coordinate with proponents of the other projects to provide a summary. The ISRP recognizes and has previously recommended that other project proponents were better positioned than the Umatilla Fish Hatchery staff for performing M&E and providing the key inputs for adaptive management (e.g., ISRP 2007-15). However, the proponents should still be able to provide a summary of details through a consultation with associated projects.

4. Evidence for reduced retention time

Condition: The proponents suggest another project (the Umatilla Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration project) is better suited to address the issue. The ISRP requests that proponents of this project coordinate with proponents of the other project to develop a summary response to our information request in the next annual work plan and annual report.

Comment: Similar to Conditions 2 and 3, other projects may provide the information; however, a summary is needed to allow ISRP reviewers to understand this project and its linkages to those other projects.

5. Funding period. The proponents are correct. The instructions specify “3-5 years of projections.” The proponent provided 3 years of projections, so they satisfied the proposal request.

Preliminary ISRP report comments: response requested

Response request comment:

This longstanding project is part of a set aimed at hatchery production, rearing, and M&E in the Umatilla Subbasin (Projects 198903500, 198343500,199000500). The ISRP observed the project’s operational objectives, although not entirely fitting the SMART format, were appropriate and clear for an O&M project. The operational methods provided were also sufficiently clear. The figure on page 13 was appreciated, showing the responsibilities of each project and how they fit together. This figure, along with Table 2 in Proposal 198902401, should be included in all proposals for the Umatilla suite of projects.

The ISRP requests the proponents to address the following points in a revised proposal and to provide a brief point-by-point response to explain how and where each issue is addressed in the revised proposal:

1. Proposed production. The Umatilla Hatchery has experienced several shifts in production number, species produced, and broodstock/egg sources in response to several ongoing or emerging challenges. The pathway or scientific criteria leading to the proposed production should be explained more thoroughly. For example, is the pathway consistent with latest HSRG recommendations along with the most up-to-date HGMP? During the presentation, we were provided with a link to a 2017 revision of the HGMP for steelhead (https://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/hgmp/docs/2017/ Umatilla%20River%20Summer%20Steelhead%20to%20NOAA%205-2-17%20with%20updates.pdf). This needs to be appended to the proposal to complete the project record.

The ISRP requests a comprehensive discussion of changes to the program relative to long-term goals. Please provide a crosswalk of production characteristics to relevant hatchery operation guidance documents. For example, the ISRP requests proponents to provide justification for the switch in 2014 to include more HORs in the steelhead broodstock. The shift appears to substitute 17 NOR females with HOR females (to achieve production levels). Given the small number of NOR fish required to fill this need, it is unclear why using HOR females is necessary given what we know about reductions in fitness caused by hatchery broodstock relative to wild brood (e.g., Christie et al. 2014). Moreover, the shift in 2014 and thereafter appears to be a switch from an “integrated” restoration program to a “segregated” harvest production program.

This request reiterates Qualifications from previous reviews (2010 RME/AP). “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.”

2. Project evaluation and adjustment. Related to the request above, what is the decision process and who makes the decisions about shifts in production (i.e., numbers, brood, or egg source when local sources do not reach target levels, and so on)? For example, project goals include preserving native and/or sustaining natural salmon, but specific objectives to pursue these goals are not included. Do these goals remain, or have goals shifted towards increasing harvest at a possible cost to restoring natural production? The ISRP requests a coordinated response among the proponents (at the Umatilla Fish Hatchery) and the resource co-managers explaining the decisions to abandon the natural broodstock for Chinook and shift away from restoring natural production. The ISRP requests a description (or map with data) of the out-of-basin sources for brood, eggs, or young.

3. Density dependence. The ISAB produced a report (ISAB 2015-1) that addresses how hatchery supplementation affects natural populations of salmon and steelhead through density dependence. The proponents should share information they have on impacts or potential impacts to naturally produced native fish populations given that well over a million salmonid smolts are released annually into the Umatilla River. What information is available and what monitoring is conducted to determine if release of large numbers of smolts conflict with goals to restore natural production and native fish populations? Do any current management plans consider the effects of density dependence at the subbasin or larger scales? Does project 199000500 Umatilla Hatchery M&E gather, evaluate, and share some of this information with this project?

4. Evidence for reduced retention time. The proponents report that raising fish to smolt size will reduce the amount of time fish spend in the Umatilla and tributaries during downstream migration. Has this assumption been tested? Please provide a summary of the evidence for this assertion, especially for any testing completed within the subbasin. Funding period. Please clarify why the proposal requests 3 years of funding, compared to 5 for other projects. Is this a convention for hatchery O&M projects? 

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

While not entirely in the SMART format, the proposal provides a lengthy list of operational objectives (n=12) and sub-objectives. Several of these (#’s 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12) are effectively “administrative, planning or reporting” objectives, and #10 is a “maintenance” objective. The remainder (#’s 4, 7, 8, 9) are the “production” objectives. These provide sufficient information and description. The production objectives (and associated subobjectives) are directly linked with Project 198343500 Satellite Facilities for acclimation purposes.

However, there are a few places where goals, objectives, and methods are switched. For example, Method 1 (Foster and sustain opportunities for sport, commercial and Tribal anglers, consistent with the conservation of naturally produced native fish) is a goal, rather than a method. It is not presented in the goals section, with associated objectives, but should be. This comment is intended to help in preparing future proposals and reports and does not require a response.

Q2: Methods

Sufficient details are provided for production and health actions, especially given the water and space limitations of the Umatilla Hatchery. The ISRP especially appreciates the intent to adhere to Oregon’s Native Fish Conservation Policy and the Hatchery Genetic and Management Plan elements for maintaining genetic integrity (note that links should be provided in future documents). Especially critical will be how the anticipated shift to include HOR steelhead broodstock meets criteria of the Oregon Native Fish Conservation Policy and the HGMP (see Request 1 above). These are important for not only remnant summer steelhead (part of the Major Population Group for the “threatened” Mid-Columbia ESU), but also for re-establishment of viable spring Chinook in the subbasin.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

M&E for released salmonids falls to other projects within the subbasin (especially 199000500 Umatilla Hatchery M&E and others). The Figure in Section 5 illustrates how M&E fits into the broader framework of the projects within the subbasin (but see Request 3 above).

The ISRP recommends including a basic description of in-facility implementation or operational monitoring that will take place on an ongoing or periodic basis. Please see Project 198343500 for an example of this kind of basic description. The ISRP does not need to see a response on this issue, but recommends it be included in work plan, annual reports, and future proposals.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The benefits fish and wildlife demonstrate modest (albeit, lower than originally proposed) return rates for artificially produced summer steelhead and fall and spring Chinook. The HORs for each group permit harvests, and it is hoped that this harvest will minimize domestication risks. However, the ISRP is concerned that domestication will not in fact be minimized by including HOR in steelhead brood (i.e., the Araki effect), and abandoning the segregated spring Chinook program will prevent achieving key desired outcomes to fish and wildlife.

Reference

Christie MR, Ford MJ, Blouin MS. 2014. On the reproductive success of early-generation hatchery fish in the wild. Evolutionary Applications 7:883–896.

Documentation Links:
Review: RME / AP Category Review

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>

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:

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:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

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.

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:

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

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Sandra Sovay (Inactive) Administrative Contact Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Scott Patterson Interested Party Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Jerilyn Irvine Administrative Contact Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Amy Mai Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Brett Requa Supervisor Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Terry Blessing Interested Party Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Andria Shelton Project Lead Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Eric McOmie Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Andrew Gibbs Supervisor Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Mary Haight Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Carolyn Sharp Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration