FY 2000 proposal 20138

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

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Master planning, NEPA compliance, final designs, and the NPPC production project review process and all scheduled in 1999. Any delays in these activities may constrain the FY2000 construction schedule.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: This proposal and project 8805302 should be combined. This proposal requests an additional $1.38 million for what appears to be part of the previous proposal. No out-year costs are shown.

Comment:

Comment:

Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? NA - Build a hatchery - doesn't fit in this review. Proposal is not well prepared and budget justification lacking adequate details.

Milestone Criteria 3: Met? NA -

Resource Criteria 4: Met? NA -

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Discussion/Background: A draft Walla Walla Master Plan was prepared in 1993 under the Northeast Oregon Hatchery – Walla Walla component project. The goal of the project is to reduce Walla Walla spring chinook production in the South Fork Walla Walla River from 600,000 initially proposed to 350,000. This production would be targeted at the more favorable and extensive spawning and rearing habitat in the South Fork Walla Walla River. Releases in the Touchet River will not be proposed initially but may be in the future pending findings from current WDFW habitat evaluation efforts. Also, a strong monitoring and evaluation component will be tied to the reduced initial spring chinook production in the Walla Walla to guide future adjustments. Additionally, a 100,000 Walla Walla stock (from Oregon) summer steelhead at Umatilla Hatchery as initially proposed in the earlier draft will be proposed. This production would fill the vacated Umatilla spring chinook space that is proposed for relocation. Steelhead smolts would be released in tributaries above Milton Freewater for supplementation of severely depressed natural production. To date no progress has been made on this master plan. Emphasis has been placed on the Umatilla component. Therefore the dates mentioned above will not be met, and a new submittal date has not been received from CTUIR.

ISRP Review: Do not fund planning or development of new facilities in the Walla Walla until the province-level review is complete. See the programmatic recommendation for the Umatilla and Walla Walla Rivers under project 8903500.

Policy Issues: The CTUIR specified that the following criteria applied to their project. Criteria "a" due to ISRP's doubts that re-establishing natural production can be achieved due to harvest problems and low smolt-to-adult survivals at the Umatilla Hatchery. Criteria "b" due to ISRP's objection to this project is that they do not believe a hatchery supplementation program can restore natural production even though the Council's fish and wildlife program measure 7.4L.1 supports artificial production.

Council Recommendations: 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 task. This funding level will be determined in consultation with the sponsor and Bonneville and maintained until the Council receives and approves step 1 documents that clearly answers the technical questions required to be answered as part of the 3-step review process (i.e. step 1 - master plan). In addition the issues raised by the ISRP in the Fiscal Year 2000 Response Review and the Artificial Production Review Report (document 99-15) policies need to be addressed and made part of the step 1 review. This review will provide the direction needed to ensure that the master planning effort is developed in a productive manner to ensure the needs of the basins are met.

The Council did not accept that portion of the ISRP's recommendation that planning activities should not be funded until a province-level review is completed. The Council believes that the planning work that must be conducted as part of the step 1 planning for a potential facility will facilitate and encourage the collection of information and analysis that will be necessary to develop a subbasin plan that will be reviewed in the province-level review. For example, section 7.4B, which outlines required elements of a master plan, directs the sponsor to identify "factors limiting production," "alternatives for resolving the resource problem", and the "historical and current status of anadromous and resident fish in the subbasin, "among other things. The type of information that is required in master planning will be very useful whether or not the facility is eventually constructed. The Council understands the ISRP's recommendation to not fund planning for this project at this time to be based in its belief that commitments to planning additional production facilities may tend to solidify the conclusion that they will be built without the benefit of a subbasin plan and review. The Council appreciates that concern, but states in the most certain terms here that a recommendation to fund planning activities at this early stage should not be interpreted or perceived to be a commitment to the eventual construction of the facility. Rather, the Council will retain its discretion to not recommend or approve construction at any point in the step review process if that is the result that scientific and policy considerations warrant. Finally, the Council does expect that a subbasin plan and review will be necessary prior to construction of a facility, should this project proceed past the step 1 planning stage.

The Council recommends that:

1. Council staff and sponsor fix a date certain for master plan submission;
2. fund only planning activities at this time;
3. use the general capital projects placeholder to fund step 2 activities if step 1 is completed and approved;
4. all future funding, including release of placeholder funding, is contingent on step approvals.

Comment: