FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 198805302

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

All design and construction costs were previously proposed to be incurred in FY 2001 with no costs expected thereafter under this construction project. Since final design and construction did not occur in FY 2001, all previously proposed costs are proejcted forward to FY 2002. Beyond FY 2002, O&M (facility operations) and M&E (production monitoring and CWT tagging) will occur under Umatilla Hatchery Satellite Facility O&M project #8343500.

Reason for change in scope

N/A

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

This project and the NEOH - Walla Walla Hatchery (project #20138) proposed at the same time have a combined cost estimate that is 10% higher than last years estimate (due to inflation factor and an increase in planning/design costs). Although both projects have an assumed production planning target of 500,000 smolts each, this project represents 66% of total cost because it is expected to be implemented first and will cover base capital costs associated with buildings and plumbing needed for incubation and early rearing.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Do Not Fund unless the response adequately addresses the ISRP concerns.

This proposal, is to build a hatchery (supplement to the Umatilla hatchery) to provide 515,000 spring chinook juveniles in addition to those produced at the Umatilla hatchery (estimated cost $5,000,000). The additional hatchery is requested primarily because the Umatilla Hatchery did not prove adequate to the task originally planned, i.e. to meet goals specified in the Umatilla Hatchery Master Plan. The problems at Umatilla Hatchery that appear to have led to the request for the supplement are 1) inadequate supply of water, about one-third of preconstruction projections, and 2) low smolt to adult returns of spring chinook. Smolt-to-adult returns at the Umatilla Hatchery have been as much as four times lower than at Bonneville. As a consequence of the limited water supply, some of the planned production for the Umatilla River has been carried out at Bonneville Hatchery and the Little White Salmon Hatchery.

A satellite facility for holding and spawning of adult spring chinook already exists on the south Fork Walla Walla River. The proposal is to construct the hatchery there. There is potential for confusion with a related proposal to rear approximately 500,000 spring chinook to be released in the Walla Walla Basin (#20138 NEOH proposal). In fact, the distinctions are not clear. Both proposals identify their proposed location at the same South Fork Walla Walla River Satellite Facility where juveniles are currently reared.

It is not clear that the additional facilities proposed would attain the goals for numbers of adult salmon or steelhead desired for return to the Umatilla River. Current return rates would not accomplish the goals with the numbers of fish proposed for release.

Clear justification of the escapement goal is required, which in time, may be achieved through the continued habitat rehabilitation efforts to address limitations to freshwater production. (See monitoring and evaluation results that indicate that the habitat is at present fully utilized). In any case, a more firm basis for establishing the appropriate mix of hatchery and natural production should be developed, both for interim application and for the future, taking potential of the habitat into account. Alternatives to this hatchery program might be explored (e.g., larger numbers of surplus hatchery adults released). The statement that "smolt-to-adult returns to the Umatilla River have been found to be up to four times lower for spring chinook produced at Umatilla Hatchery compared to those produced at Bonneville and Little White Salmon hatcheries" is a concern, since it is not clear that the proposed construction will improve that situation. More review is required here, considering the cost, and that review needs to be part of a basin-wide consideration and plan. The review must encompass risk and uncertainty in hatchery plans, weighing both benefits and costs (including potential costs to wild production).

"We understand the goals are to achieve rebuilding of salmon and steelhead populations to levels that would support harvest, with specified levels of hatchery and natural production. The tribe is particularly interested in restoring natural production. The proposal seems to reduce the issue to a simple matter of selecting a desired mix of hatchery and natural components, whereas the issue is in fact complicated by many factors, such as interactions of hatchery and naturally produced fish, relative survival rates of the two, effects of the fishery on survival rates, limitations of habitat, and so on. These issues should be considered in the proposal and addressed both therein and in the monitoring and evaluation proposal where evaluations of assumptions should be incorporated in study plans." Perhaps a workshop would be helpful.

Analysis of alternative approaches for achieving the adult return goals, most likely will include a mix of approaches, one of which might include the use of additional facilities for rearing juveniles. The ISRP has repeatedly advised the use of temporary rearing facilities, but we have yet to see an indication that this has been incorporated in any salmonid restoration plans. We understand BPA's reluctance to fund construction of facilities that are not designed for long-term use. On the other hand, long-term use of hatchery facilities could be counterproductive in the context of a plan that focuses on natural production.

On page 13 of 198903500 the proposal states that an additional water supply is needed to meet the production goals of the facility. (Elsewhere, it is noted that the water supply is only 1/3 of the amount projected for the hatchery.) The question is this: If additional water is supplied would this eliminate the need for construction of the Umatilla Hatchery Supplement, Project #198805302? This may be one of the alternatives to construction of the supplement.

Comment:

Comment:

If, however, self-sustaining natural stocks of Umatilla salmonids are to be restored and protected, this proposal is not fundable. The statement that "smolt-to-adult returns to the Umatilla River have been found to be up to four times lower for spring chinook produced at Umatilla Hatchery compared to those produced at Bonneville and Little White Salmon hatcheries" is a concern, since it is not clear that the proposed construction will improve that situation. More review is required here, considering the cost, and that review needs to be part of a basin-wide consideration and plan. The review must encompass risk and uncertainty in hatchery plans, weighing both benefits and costs (including potential costs to wild production).

We understand the goals are to achieve rebuilding of salmon populations to levels that would support harvest, with specified levels of hatchery and natural production. The tribe is particularly interested in restoring natural production. The proposal seems to reduce the issue to a simple matter of selecting a desired mix of hatchery and natural components, whereas the issue is in fact complicated by many factors, such as interactions of hatchery and naturally produced fish, relative survival rates of the two, effects of the fishery on survival rates, and limitations of habitat.

The ISRP has repeatedly advised the use of temporary rearing facilities, but we have yet to see an indication that this has been incorporated in any salmonid restoration plans. We understand BPA's reluctance to fund construction of facilities that are not designed for long-term use. On the other hand, long-term use of hatchery facilities could be counterproductive in the context of a plan that focuses on natural production.

Population biology theory and existing experimental data suggest that hatchery fish can compromise dynamics and structure of natural populations. Consequently, the scientific credibility of a program that includes restoration and protection of wild stocks, must be guided by carefully designed experiments to resolve the issues associated with these predictions and findings. Moreover, the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program stipulates that artificial production must be approached experimentally. Some unresolved questions include: how will harvest be managed to prevent excess fish at the hatchery while at the same time prevent overexploitation of the natural fish population? (Under the 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program, even "harvest hatcheries" must be located and operated in a manner that do not lead to adverse effects on other stocks through excessive straying or excessive take of weak stocks in a mixed-stock fishery). What exploitation rate can the wild fish sustain? If overexploitation of natural fish is permitted (to take advantage of the hatchery fish production) thus requiring supplementation of the natural fish, how and by how much does that compromise "fitness" of the population? A donor stock was used to initiate the run, and fish from that run are taken into the hatchery program and subsequently used to supplement the natural run. How is adaptation of these fish to conditions in the Umatilla Basin compromised by the continued introduction of hatchery fish to the population?

Comment:

Comments
Seeks to increase production of spring chinook (Carson stock) into the Umatilla River from 720 K to 1.235 M smolts, which may increase interactions with listed steelhead (HGMP may clarify). May provide increased fishery benefits.

Already ESA Req? NO

Biop? NO

Comment:

Comment:

ISRP" Disagree - Not Fundable" recommendation for Design and Construct Umatilla Hatchery Supplement; Project 198805302

This project proposes to develop a supplement to the Umatilla Hatchery Master Plan to include the additional spring chinook production and the facilities required to produce this spring chinook production objectives as outlined in the original master plan. The goal is to produce 589,000 spring chinook yearlings at South Fork Walla Walla as initially proposed in the Umatilla Hatchery Master Plan and the 1993 draft supplement (under NEOH - Umatilla). In addition this master plan will address relocation of production of 100,000 spring chinook from Carson NFH and 360,000 spring chinook from Umatilla Hatchery to the South Fork Walla Walla.

This project has been at Step 1 of the Three-Step Review Process since 1997. Numerous submittal dates have not been met (i.e. November 16, 1998 and May 3, 1999). The Council's Fiscal Year 2000 funding recommendation concluded that until completion and approval of a Master Plan as part of the Step 1 review process, all activities associated with this project should be funded at a level for this specific masterplanning task. This funding level will be maintained until Council receives and approves Step 1 documents that clearly answers the technical questions required to be answered as part of the Three-Step review process.

Though requested on January 27, 2000 no submittal date has been received for the master plan submittal. BPA recommends that this project be deferred pending the completion of essential habitat and passagework. In addition, BPA has determined that there is a need to the priority of this effort in context to other artificial production initiatives in the Columbia Basin.

Staff recommendation: The staff concluded that the ISRP's criticisms are appropriate, but should be addressed as part of the Step 1 (i.e. master plan) submittal. This proposal has been in existence since the late 1980's, as part of the Northeast Oregon Hatchery Project, and to date no progress has occurred. The step one submittal is to be delivered by April 30, 2002. No new funds, additional funds are dependent on the submittal and favorable review of a master plan and securing funds through budget reallocations. Budgets for this effort need to be defined and determined through the quarterly review process.

Budget effect on base program (Project 198805302):

Comment:

Comment:

Comment: