FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 198805301

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Reason for change in estimated budget

We anticipated construction would begin in 2002 and therefore construction costs were included in the 2002 forecast.

Reason for change in scope

The scope of the project has not changed, it has just taken longer to proceed through the Three-Step Process than anticipated.

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

1. This proposal addresses four species for eventual restoration either through supplementation (spring chinook and steelhead through development of endemic brood stocks) or re-introduction of extirpated species (coho and sockeye salmon). NPPC authorized development of master plans for coho (November 2001) and steelhead (October 2002). For coho salmon, a feasibility analysis (Cramer and Witty 1998) concluded that "the prospect for successful introduction was good, however, annual supplementation would likely be necessary to sustain the adult return goals, due to limiting factors out of the subbasin". The ISRP does not wish to comment on the desire of local agencies for these resources but an "implied" priority that concerns us. Do the co-managers intend to proceed with coho before or simultaneously with the steelhead programs? If so, we note that the listing of steelhead requires a higher priority on this species and, biologically we note a concern for potential competition between these species ... particularly when production of natural steelhead is depressed. Coho salmon are extremely opportunistic in their habitat use and may generate an additional impact on steelhead that has not been acknowledged. The co-managers should comment on the timing of these events and/or their understanding of these potential interactions. Our recommendation would be to defer coho re-introduction until steelhead is well established and natural populations more secure. Further, the re-introduction of sockeye salmon to Wallowa Lake should be deferred until studies of the lake ecosystem demonstrate an understanding of why kokanee production is declining. Re-introduction of sockeye will be very unlikely to succeed if the inter-specific competition in the lake is not favorable to kokanee. At this time, resources should be directed to studying this ecosystem instead of planning enhancement facilities.
2. As in the past review, the committee continues to be concerned about the emphasis on hatchery-oriented production to support recovery without some balanced approach to correcting the root problems. Two concerns should be addressed, these include the expectation of harvest on these recovering stocks and the absence of a habitat restoration plan incorporated into the master plan. As expressed previously, are we "treating the symptoms, not solutions"? The implementation of harvest must be conducted carefully to avoid the obvious conflict with allowing these listed species to spawn and recovery ... the co-managers should establish precautionary guidelines for when harvest is allowed and at what rates. The habitat issues are large, but must be addressed before our investments in facilities are likely to show sustained benefits for natural production. Many habitat projects were reviewed by the committee, but within the master plan, do the co-managers have a plan to monitor the overall watershed "health" or productivity of the stocks? The sum of the individual habitat projects should be evaluated to assess success and ensure harvest rates are compatible with stock productivities in their current environments.
3. Past ISRP reviews were critical of this proposal for "failing to clearly develop a rationale for their goals and objectives (many of the latter were in fact simply tasks, not biological objectives) which were very broad and general. Most remain vaguely presented and justified. Because alternatives to development of proposed facilities will be addressed in the master plan document, it is impossible to evaluate the scientific merit of the various alternatives until the document is available for review. The Fish and Wildlife Plan does not constitute scientific justification for planning and development for coho and sockeye salmon reintroduction and steelhead supplementation." In the current proposal, objectives 5 and 6 (Section 9f) are not included in the budget summary, and four of the objectives involve monitoring and evaluation but without any clarification of tasks, methods, or intended uses. This panel continues to share the concerns expressed previously. We recognize that this likely results from the scope of activities included in one proposal but given our task of evaluating the scientific basis of the proposals ... this format of presentation is unlikely to receive positive reviews without addressing the concerns expressed. Can the co-managers address these concerns or is an alternative format of necessary? For example, four proposals with the necessary detail maybe required for technical review.
4. While the spawning escapement monitoring in the Minam and Wenaha rivers are not included as an activity in this NEOH Master Plan, the comparability of monitoring programs in these treated streams and those control streams is of concern. For a valid comparison between systems, similar evaluation programs should be conducted in each system. At present, our understanding of the surveys in the Minam and Wenaha rivers is that visual index surveys are conducted; whereas in the Lostine, Catherine, and Grande Ronde rivers more quantitative surveys are now conducted (weirs and mark-recapture). The co-managers should comment on the comparability of these surveys and/or how they could evaluate this concern.

At present, this review panel is unable to support the proposal, and its large budget, due to its uncertain scientific basis. Based on the need for a "sound scientific basis" to the proposals, the committee can not adequately review these proposals due to a lack of biological or quantitative goals, measurable objectives, and methodology. Our experience with the Step-1 process for spring chinook indicated that these can be developed but they are not present in this submission. Our suggestion would be to defer final comment until the Step processes begin but the issue of allowing for substantial budgets (without a strong basis presented) would have to be addressed by the Council.

Comment:

Comment:

ISRP Preliminary Review Comments: (included for reference)

Response required. As described NEOH section above, this proposal is a continuation of past planning and design efforts to develop conservation production facilities in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde rivers necessary to implement salmon recovery programs for native, ESA listed, spring chinook and steelhead, and reintroduction of coho and sockeye salmon. The tasks by species are each at different levels of preparedness with the spring chinook plans significantly in advance of the other species (NPPC Step-2 proposal submitted). The proposal contains some very good background information and description of relations to Regional Programs and other projects. Unfortunately, the more technical sections concerning objectives and methods are weaker, and monitoring and evaluation tasks similarly undefined or described (even though a large budget was identified). The ISRP identified similar concern for the objectives in their last review. We recognize though that for spring chinook these concerns for objectives and methods were addressed in the Step-One NEOH Master Plan (Ashe et al. 2000) and accepted following the ISRP review (ISRP 20000-6). ISRP questions concerning monitoring and evaluation have been addressed in the Step-2 Submittal to the NPPC (August 2001) but have not be fully reviewed at this time. We plan to complete our preliminary review in late October. Following our Provincial review though, the ISRP requests response to some general issues for consideration:

1. This proposal addresses four species for eventual restoration either through supplementation (spring chinook and steelhead through development of endemic brood stocks) or re-introduction of extirpated species (coho and sockeye salmon). NPPC authorized development of master plans for coho (November 2001) and steelhead (October 2002). For coho salmon, a feasibility analysis (Cramer and Witty 1998) concluded that "the prospect for successful introduction was good, however, annual supplementation would likely be necessary to sustain the adult return goals, due to limiting factors out of the subbasin". The ISRP does not wish to comment on the desire of local agencies for these resources but an "implied" priority that concerns us. Do the co-managers intend to proceed with coho before or simultaneously with the steelhead programs? If so, we note that the listing of steelhead requires a higher priority on this species and, biologically we note a concern for potential competition between these species ... particularly when production of natural steelhead is depressed. Coho salmon are extremely opportunistic in their habitat use and may generate an additional impact on steelhead that has not been acknowledged. The co-managers should comment on the timing of these events and/or their understanding of these potential interactions. Our recommendation would be to defer coho re-introduction until steelhead is well established and natural populations more secure. Further, the re-introduction of sockeye salmon to Wallowa Lake should be deferred until studies of the lake ecosystem demonstrate an understanding of why kokanee production is declining. Re-introduction of sockeye will be very unlikely to succeed if the inter-specific competition in the lake is not favorable to kokanee. At this time, resources should be directed to studying this ecosystem instead of planning enhancement facilities.
2. As in the past review, the committee continues to be concerned about the emphasis on hatchery-oriented production to support recovery without some balanced approach to correcting the root problems. Two concerns should be addressed, these include the expectation of harvest on these recovering stocks and the absence of a habitat restoration plan incorporated into the master plan. As expressed previously, are we "treating the symptoms, not solutions"? The implementation of harvest must be conducted carefully to avoid the obvious conflict with allowing these listed species to spawn and recovery ... the co-managers should establish precautionary guidelines for when harvest is allowed and at what rates. The habitat issues are large, but must be addressed before our investments in facilities are likely to show sustained benefits for natural production. Many habitat projects were reviewed by the committee, but within the master plan, do the co-managers have a plan to monitor the overall watershed "health" or productivity of the stocks? The sum of the individual habitat projects should be evaluated to assess success and ensure harvest rates are compatible with stock productivities in their current environments.
3. Past ISRP reviews were critical of this proposal for "failing to clearly develop a rationale for their goals and objectives (many of the latter were in fact simply tasks, not biological objectives) which were very broad and general. Most remain vaguely presented and justified. Because alternatives to development of proposed facilities will be addressed in the master plan document, it is impossible to evaluate the scientific merit of the various alternatives until the document is available for review. The Fish and Wildlife Plan does not constitute scientific justification for planning and development for coho and sockeye salmon reintroduction and steelhead supplementation." In the current proposal, objectives 5 and 6 (Section 9f) are not included in the budget summary, and four of the objectives involve monitoring and evaluation but without any clarification of tasks, methods, or intended uses. This panel continues to share the concerns expressed previously. We recognize that this likely results from the scope of activities included in one proposal but given our task of evaluating the scientific basis of the proposals ... this format of presentation is unlikely to receive positive reviews without addressing the concerns expressed. Can the co-managers address these concerns or is an alternative format of necessary? For example, four proposals with the necessary detail maybe required for technical review.
4. While the spawning escapement monitoring in the Minam and Wenaha rivers are not included as an activity in this NEOH Master Plan, the comparability of monitoring programs in these treated streams and those control streams is of concern. For a valid comparison between systems, similar evaluation programs should be conducted in each system. At present, our understanding of the surveys in the Minam and Wenaha rivers is that visual index surveys are conducted; whereas in the Lostine, Catherine, and Grande Ronde rivers more quantitative surveys are now conducted (weirs and mark-recapture). The co-managers should comment on the comparability of these surveys and/or how they could evaluate this concern.

Comment:

Comments
The preparation of the HGMP should occur and efficient, expeditious, integration of hatchery programs to meet resource needs would result.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? No

Comment:

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
Base

Comment:

The Nez Perce Tribe, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and BPA initiated the Northeast Oregon Hatchery project in 1988. Initially designed to address spring chinook, steelhead, coho, sockeye and fall Chinook, NEOH has evolved over time. The master planning development refocused on phasing in rebuilding goals. The Master Plan has focused on addressing current levels of production under the Lower Snake River Compensation Program using new and improved techniques for artificial production. The reason for this refocus on current production levels was driven primarily by ESA requirements and constraints for hatchery production, and facility limitations that were compromising the ability to achieve the production that had already been agreed to by the managers and permitted by NMFS. On September 20, 2000 the Council provided a conditional approval of the Step One submittal (the Spring Chinook Master Plan). The Council also established its expectations for the Step Two submittal. .

On September 4, 2001 the NPT submitted the Step Two documents. When the Nez Perce made that submission it was believed that NEPA requirements would be satisfied with a simpler Environmental Assessment (EA) document. It was anticipated that this EA would be completed by the time Council made decisions on the Mountain Snake and Blue Mountain Provinces. Council staff wanted to align the review of the Step Two documents by the ISRP to the provincial review for efficiency purposes. However, soon after the step two submittal was received, BPA made a determination that that a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) document would be needed instead of the previously anticipated, and much simpler, Environmental Assessment. This new decision by BPA about its NEPA requirements prevents the Council from making a Step Two decision in this current provincial review. It is anticipated that the draft EIS will be completed this fall. In light of this more extensive environmental review process, the comments made by the ISRP in their preliminary review of the Step Two documents (ISRP document 2001- 12C) and the need to complete important elements of the step two submittal (e.g. monitoring plan, MOU and etc.) the completed step two submittal needs to be rescheduled to a later date so that it tracks with the EIS development. The Council is advised that the draft EIS will be completed in late summer or early fall. This should allow for a step-two submittal to be provided to the Council in the fall of this year (2002). The proposed FY 2002 budget has been realigned to reflect the altered schedule and a more realistic timing for out-year phases and costs. As always, final details and Council approval of out-year costs (such as construction) will depend on Council decisions made in its Step Two and Three reviews and decisions. At this time it is anticipated that construction, if approved by the Council, would occur in FY '03.

ISRP supported all projects associated with the NEOH planning effort (e.g. ODFW). NFMS considers the project as a BASE project for Biological Opinion implementation and Bonneville rated the projects as fundable.

A remaining issue overhanging NEOH, and perhaps other large capital projects currently being planned and contemplated, is how to ensure the necessary funds are available to project sponsors for large capital projects when those projects successfully complete step reviews and move into a build-out phase. If these funding needs must come from exclusively within the province funding allocations established by the Council, they could potentially consume the bulk of the provincial budget. For example, in the case of NEOH, if its funding is limited to the provincial budget of $12.4 million, the entire provincial budget by FY04 would be consumed for the construction of that project.

Looking at the Blue Mountain funding allocations in this fashion, the regional discussion of Blue Mountain priorities left an unallocated reserve of $5.541 million, with much of the allocation coming out of some Nez Perce monitoring and evaluation projects (see Imnaha Issues 1 and 3). To ensure NEOH with some capital reserve from the provincial budget, the Council would recommend that these reserve funds be dedicated to the design and construction of NEOH. Dedicating these funds as a reserve would still leave the capital needs of NEOH about $13 million short of proposed requirements in the three-year budget period as currently defined.

Discussions have taken place to try to resolve the capital allocations provinces in which the Council has already made funding decisions and to forecast in an effort to determine potential capital needs in provinces scheduled for FY03 decisions. Unless other funds have been secured, the unallocated placeholder at Bonneville could then be used to pay for the balance of the NEOH design and construction funds if that project continues to secure Council approvals in the three-step review process. Council staff continue to work on defining the anticipated large capital needs for the program, and will work with the Council, fish and wildlife managers, and Bonneville to further define how we need to be strategic in the use unallocated placeholder funds as well as capital component within each province allocation to meet large capital needs.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website