FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 200003800

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

Reason for change in scope

N/A

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

This project and the Umatilla Hatchery Supplement (project #8805302) proposed at the same site have a combined cost estimate that is approximately 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 approximately 500,000 smolts each, this project represents 34% of the total cost because it is expected to be implemented second and intial base capital costs associated with buildings and plumbing needed for incubation and early rearing will already have been covered.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Do not fund unless a response adequately addresses ISRP concerns. Walla Walla River program managers have numeric goals for spring chinook and steelhead in the system. Habitat issues must first be addressed, such as passage issues downstream of the South Fork. A conflict between harvest and rebuilding exists, which requires further review, clarification, and clear agency support, as well as an evaluation of risks and uncertainties.

Managers have initiated many habitat improvement projects, to increase natural production. The need for hatchery fish depends on the deficit between the goals and what can be expected from rehabilitated natural production. What is the expected production from the rehabilitated watershed? How was that projection made? Is the proposal to produce an additional 500,000 salmon smolts in the hatchery based on the estimated deficit? If the need for hatchery fish is expected to decline as natural production increases, can temporary facilities that are easily dismantled be used for the desired production? Alternatives to construction of another hatchery should be explored, such as further outplanting of surplus hatchery adults. The potential impact on steelhead should be discussed.

This proposal and the proposal for a Umatilla Hatchery Supplement seem to proceed on an assumption that the available water supply is sufficient for both, without supporting data.

The response should spell out the expected natural production from the Walla Walla River, and specify how the hatchery fits into the picture. Is addition of hatchery fish planned as a temporary measure, or is it expected to be ongoing to provide fish for harvest? What is the expected interaction with steelhead? What are the possible alternatives to stocking hatchery fish? What are the probable differences in time frames required for restoration under the alternatives compared to the hatchery stocking? How does restoration of passage affect that time frame? We sense a difference in viewpoint between the state agencies and the tribe as to which alternative is preferred. To some degree policy and technical issues impinge on one another with respect to a decision whether or not to proceed with implementation of a full-scale hatchery program in the Walla Walla River. We feel there should be a statement of agreement among the affected management entities prior to implementation of a hatchery program, because there are potential long-term effects on what might be obtained from natural production and harvest. Based on past experience the council should be assured prior to construction that the water supply at any facility it approves will be adequate.

Comment:

Comment:

If, however, native stocks of Walla Walla salmonids are to be restored and protected, this proposal is not fundable. The statement that harvest was open in 8 out of the last 12 years while natural spawning was 47% of the (poorly defined) goal suggests that harvest was not managed effectively. The natural production goal was apparently based on available habitat, but there was no explanation of how either was calculated by managers, or why and how habitat enhancement efforts have potentially doubled the adult production from 1000 to 2000 adults. A strong argument for a proposal to support a harvest (and potential overexploitation) that might further affect wild production, was not provided, particularly since the potential of wild production in newly accessible and improved habitat seems the better option.

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. 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 does 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 the natural fish is permitted so as to take advantage of the hatchery fish production, thus requiring supplementation of the natural fish, how does that compromise "fitness" of the population? How was the donor stock chosen? Apparently, an occasional salmon strays into the system. Why haven't these fish been successful spawners? Does the same fate await other donor fish? How will adaptation of these fish to conditions in the Umatilla Basin be compromised by the continued introduction of hatchery fish to the population? What is the expected interaction with steelhead?

We sense a difference in viewpoint between the state agencies and the tribe as to which alternative is preferred. To some degree policy and technical issues impinge on one another with respect to a decision whether or not to proceed with implementation of a full-scale hatchery program in the Walla Walla River. We feel there should be a statement of agreement among the affected management entities prior to implementation of a hatchery program, because there are potential long-term effects on what might be obtained from natural production and harvest. Based on past experience the Council should be assured prior to construction that the water supply at any facility it approves will be adequate.

Comment:

Comments
NMFS supports spring chinook reintroduction here but does not support steelhead plans at this time (see below)

Already ESA Req? NO

Biop? NO

Comment:

Comments
Steelhead (MCR SH) in area of proposed hatchery are currently managed for natural production, and hatchery steelhead are prevented from entering natural spawning areas in South Fork Walla Walla. Proposed steelhead hatchery program would change this management. NMFS believes an agreed HGMP justifying the need and methods of the steelhead program should proceed implementation of this element of the proposal

Already ESA Req? NO

Biop? NO

Comment:

Comment:

ISRP "disagree - Not Fundable" recommendations for constructing NEOH Walla Walla facilities; Project 200003800.

BPA feels that this proposal is not a high priority and that funds in the basin should be focused on completing the correction of critical habitat issues.

This project proposes to add incubation/juvenile rearing capabilities to the existing South Fork Walla Walla adult holding/spawning facility (i.e. Umatilla Hatchery Satellite Facility) to produce spring chinook salmon and acclimate summer steelhead for release in the Walla Walla River Basin. To date no progress has been made on this Master Plan for the Walla Walla.

The 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 on October 4, 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. Bonneville, in consultation with the sponsor, determined that the appropriate funding level for this effort to be $100,000. 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. To date no progress has been made on this Master Plan for the Walla Walla. Though requested on January 27, 2000 no submittal date has been received for the master plan submittal.

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 August 31, 2002. No new funds, additional funds are dependent on the submittal and favorable review of a master plan and securing funds through budget reallocations. BPA feels that this proposal is not a high priority and that funds in the basin should be focused on completing the correction of critical habitat issues.

Budget effect on base program (Project 200003800)*:

*This is a 'remaining proposals' and received a do not fund from the ISRP review, therefore no change to the base budget.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website