FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 198335000

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

Cost of O&M has decreased by $190,000 whereas cost for P&D has increased by $290,000. P&D activities will include a more thorough preliminary design for $150,000 than was forecast ($50,000) to shorten the length of time necessary for final design. In addition BPA estimates NEPA costs at $250,000 vs. our estimate of $100,000. O&M budget forecast from FY01 was $3,035,000 and P&D was $350,000. We are requesting FY02 costs of $2,845,000 for O&M and $640,000 for P&D.

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

The NPTH has two phases of construction management. These phases are the result of issues arising during the Final Design process. During that process, the NPPC approved construction of a smaller scale, more temporary NPTH program, based on concerns by the ISRP in their FY2000 review. Implementation of the full-scale production program (Phase Two) will be dependent on M&E results from the first phase of the program. Initial production numbers were decreased and facility infrastructure was designed to meet a reduced cost. It is important that the NPTH production remain at the reduced Phase I level throughout this initial review and evaluation period.

The ISRP remains concerned that planning for the hatchery and its M&E include all possible management and response alternatives including termination of the program due to either success or failure in achieving program objectives. A noted in FY00 review, the ISRP recommends that a full and consistent decision tree be developed as the program moves forward. The tree should specify all triggers, including intermediate levels and timelines that if not achieved would forestall Phase 2 construction, or even lead to termination of the program itself. The history of fisheries management in the Columbia River Basin is replete with projects that failed to achieve their objectives in part or even completely. Thus, in spite of the need for this project, and the enthusiasm of its implementers, it would seem prudent to plan for all possible outcomes.

Another lingering concern is that the project focuses on a largely untested concept on too large a scale. We note that Phase I production objectives have been scaled down in response to this concern from the ISRP. Over the last decade, the Basin has entered into 3 substantial programs that were intended to serve as experimental tests of supplementation (NEOH, Idaho, and Yakima projects); but have not yet had time to yield reliable findings. The scientific foundation for the NPT large-scale project has therefore, not been provided. The proposed activities should more directly address or at least circumvent limiting factors to salmon production.

Many of the asserted "innovative" approaches (i.e., NATUREs concept) are presently supported by a small literature base that is limited in both the scale of studies and by the subsequent inferences to overall hatchery practices. In general, the approaches have not been proven to yield greater survival to adulthood of released fish than standard practice. Project advocates also claim that they will not impact populations in nature by keeping within natural "carrying capacities." Carrying capacity has proven difficult to measure and altering density at any population level with propagated fish will no doubt influence the population in nature. On the positive side, it appears the sponsors have undertaken surveys to determine carrying capacity and appear to be undertaking habitat improvement projects to absorb the hatchery-produced fish.

Comment:

Comment:

The proposal and response did not sufficiently address longstanding ISRP concerns. The applicant relies on "policy decision" rather than on scientific justification for the project. Specifically, the ISRP's previous questions were, (1)"This project focuses on a largely untested concept on too large a scale", (2)"the conditions primarily responsible for limiting the resource (the salmon population in this case) be identified, and (3) that it be demonstrated that the proposed project will remove those limiting conditions or circumvent them."

The NPTH has two phases of construction management. These phases are the result of issues arising during the Final Design process. During that process, the NPPC approved construction of a smaller scale, more temporary NPTH program, based on concerns by the ISRP in their FY2000 review. Implementation of the full-scale production program (Phase Two) will be dependent on M&E results from the first phase of the program. Initial production numbers were decreased and facility infrastructure was designed to meet a reduced cost. It is important that the NPTH production remain at the reduced Phase I level throughout this initial review and evaluation period.

The ISRP remains concerned that planning for the hatchery and its M&E include all possible management and response alternatives including termination of the program due to either success or failure in achieving program objectives. A noted in FY00 review, the ISRP recommends that a full and consistent decision tree be developed as the program moves forward. The tree should specify all triggers, including intermediate levels and timelines that if not achieved would forestall Phase 2 construction, or even lead to termination of the program itself. The history of fisheries management in the Columbia River Basin is replete with projects that failed to achieve their objectives in part or even completely. Thus, in spite of the need for this project, and the enthusiasm of its implementers, it would seem prudent to plan for all possible outcomes.

Another lingering concern is that the project focuses on a largely untested concept on too large a scale. We note that Phase I production objectives have been scaled down in response to this concern from the ISRP. Over the last decade, the Basin has entered into 3 substantial programs that were intended to serve as experimental tests of supplementation (NEOH, Idaho, and Yakima projects); but have not yet had time to yield reliable findings. The scientific foundation for the NPT large-scale project has therefore, not been provided. The proposed activities should more directly address or at least circumvent factors that limit salmon production.

Many of the asserted "innovative" approaches (i.e., the NATUREs concept) are presently supported by a small literature base that is limited in the scale of studies and by the subsequent inferences to overall hatchery practices. In general, the approaches have not been proven to yield greater survival to adulthood of released fish than standard practice. Project advocates also claim that, by keeping within natural "carrying capacities," they will avoid negatively impacting populations in nature. Carrying capacity has proven difficult to measure, and altering density at any population level with propagated fish will no doubt influence the population in nature. On the positive side, it appears the sponsors have undertaken surveys to determine carrying capacity and appear to be undertaking habitat improvement projects to absorb the hatchery-produced fish.

Comment:

Comments
Agree with the ISRP comments on this and the following proposal. The commitment to NATURES rearing without any other large scale tests has contributed to the expense of this project, particularly for a fairly small production of Rapid River stock of spring chinook that are proposed for release as Natures-reared parr into some questionable habitats. Phase 1 may be a good boost to the Clearwater fall chinook, but phase 2 should be held until evaluation is complete on phase 1. The size and scope of the production programs and the potential adult returns may not justify the cost of this program.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? No

Comment:

BPA RPA RPM:
--

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
--

Comment:

At the May 17, 2000, meeting in Helena, the Council approved the step-three (Final Design) review for the Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery. While it approved the final designs and recommended that Bonneville fund the construction of the facilities associated with this project, it conditioned the approval based on the following.

• Construction of the facilities associated with this project is not to exceed $16 million.
• The Council's recommendation for funding of this project is conditioned upon the design and the scope of the project as outlined in the April 28, 2000, decision document. Any significant changes in the design and scope of this project, including changes to the facilities or production will require additional review by the Council before they are recommended for funding.
• The Council asks Bonneville to establish specific cost reporting requirements for the project contractor. These reports should document the progress of construction against the approved project budget and scope. The Council asks that Bonneville project management staff review reports from the project contractor with Council staff at least quarterly.

To meet the $16 million construction cap, modifications to the design of the facilities were made to several of the sites. This included the following.

• Lower production numbers;
• Luke' Gulch, Cedar Flat and Sweetwater Springs will be temporary facilities;
• No permanent weir at Meadow Creek;
• Allotment 1705 reduced size of office space and materials substitution.

The Council was very specific during its deliberation and approval of the step three review of the NPTH. In addition, it qualified any future expansion of the facilities or production to future reviews and approvals. Therefore, the proposed budgets and phases for this project for Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004 were aligned to the Council decision as reviewed and confirmed by the Council on November 1, 2000. The Council's recommended alignment is consistent with the ISRP recommendation to fund only Phase 1 activities at this time. The NMFS and Bonneville comments agree with the ISRP recommendations for these two projects, and support only the production levels that were approved by the Council as part of the step three review.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website