FY 2000 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

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Timely review and approval through NPPC 3-Step Review Process, land acquisition process, design and engineering delays, NEPA constraints, construction delays, co-manager agreement on management plans.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: Although this program is funded under the guise of spring chinook restoration, planning and development for coho and sockeye salmon reintroduction and steelhead supplementation are listed as specific objectives of the project. Population declines of chinook salmon are attributed to decreased production resulting from juvenile and adult mortality that occurs at Snake and Columbia mainstem dams and reservoirs; it is unclear how hatchery supplementation will overcome these factors. Without freshwater habitat and marine survival information, it will be difficult to accurately assess the role of supplementation in annual variation in the number of returning salmon. For these reasons, the reviewers judge the proposal to be of questionable benefit to fish.

Overall, this proposal fails to adequately justify its expense. This project is more planning and coordination than construction, though it involves some collection of baseline data. The objective is to plan and build hatcheries, but a more appropriate scientific objective would be to evaluate the roles of various hatchery approaches, or of hatcheries and alternative approaches, or of the relationships of hatcheries and complementary approaches. No such development of rationale is given; there is no justification of projects or construction. The single greatest cost is for designing the facilities. This cost is not justified at all, except that it is a contract to Montgomery and Watson. In view of the existing knowledge of such approaches as NATURES and of the construction of other facilities, this expenditure needs to be defended. The next greatest cost is for NEPA analysis. The proposers say that BPA is the lead on NEPA compliance, so reviewers ask why this project needs to perform NEPA analysis? The third greatest cost is personnel; the large staff is not justified by the proposal.

Reviewers provided some more specific comments and questions about the project: Why might it be a good idea to increase the number of facilities for producing salmon in the region? What are the alternatives to increased facility construction and operation? What are the financial and ecological costs to the various approaches? Even if the Lookingglass hatchery were larger, might there still be a reason to spread the effort over more sites to reduce the possibility of catastrophic loss at a single site from disease or other failure? Are separate incubation and rearing facilities needed for spring chinook and coho because they are in different rivers?

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

The response clarifies that part of the requested funding is needed to support the Grande Ronde Endemic Spring Chinook Program, which was presented in several other proposals and recommended by the ISRP as a reasonable test program for captive broodstock approaches to conservation and remediation for threatened or endangered native stocks.

The original proposals were criticized 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.

Reviewers judged the combination of hatcheries intended to preserve native stocks with supplementation for harvest to be scientifically unjustified and unsound. Current scientific understanding would dictate that genetic conservation of stocks and mass rearing to support harvest are incompatible goals. These stocks should not be used to support harvest, but rather should be used to recover endangered stocks.

The proposed reintroduction efforts also are not scientifically justified, given the presence of the other overriding limiting factors, which are acknowledged in the proposal to be continuing problems. The respondents note that previous research suggests that the prospect for successful introduction are good, but passage mortality and harvest rates under current conditions are too high for natural production to be self-sustaining. This information suggests that if the goal of the proposal is to implement salmon recovery, a captive brood program will not be successful until the other critical factors affecting salmon persistence are addressed. Stating that a study says that reintroduction has a good chance of "working", given continuing supplementation, does not remove this concern. Further, the continuing weakness of native stocks in the rivers of concern is likely to be worsened by increasing numbers of hatchery fish of other species.

Comment:

Comment:

The purpose of this NEOH project is the development of comprehensive planning documents (i.e. master plans) for artificial production initiatives in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde basins for several anadromous species including Spring Chinook in the Imnaha/Grande Ronde, Coho Grande Ronde/Wallowa, Fall Chinook in the Imnaha/Grande Ronde, Steelhead in the Grande Ronde, and Sockeye in the Grande Ronde (Wallowa Lake). Current emphasis by NPT is the development of a master plan for the spring chinook in the Imnaha/Grande Ronde.

The NEOH project is a cooperative endeavor with ODFW, and differences in management philosophies have caused the Tribe and ODFW to be in dispute on fundamental aspects of fisheries production for Grande Ronde and Imnaha spring chinook since 1993.

This project is explicitly linked to several other projects and programs (e.g., two Lower Snake River Compensation Plan programs) in the basin as outlined below. Generally, the NPT is primarily responsible for operating supplementation facilities (adult collection and holding and juvenile acclimation and release) on the Lostine River, while the CTUIR is responsible for operating supplementation facilities on the upper Grande Ronde River and Catherine Creek.

ODFW is responsible, in coordination with the Tribes, NMFS, and USFWS for production and activities occurring at the Lookingglass, Irrigon , and Bonneville hatcheries, and at the Manchester Marine Laboratory. The Grande Ronde captive brood component of the Grande Ronde Basin Spring Chinook Supplementation Program was implemented as an emergency measure in 1995 and the conventional component was implemented in 1997. To obtain a Section 10 permit to operate the program in 1998, NMFS required the co-managers to develop a management plan that integrated captive and conventional broodstock production. Section 10 permit applications that included the broodstock management plan were developed cooperatively for the Imnaha and Grande Ronde and filed with NMFS who then authorized collection of spring chinook and propagation of this listed species. The NPT are using these agreements and management plans to guide the master planning process.

In 1998, the NPT focused on how they might more realistically phase in rebuilding goals with limited regional funding and broodstock. The original concept for the NEOH master plans called for "new" production that would be additional to the LSRCP production currently occurring at Lookingglass Hatchery. However, with the continuing decline of salmon runs and the subsequent overload this caused on Lookingglass (i.e. with the additional burdens placed on the facility), as a tool to forestall extinction of Northeast Oregon chinook, the NPT concentrated their planning efforts on alleviating stress at the facility and restructuring where existing production would occur.

ISRP Review: Fund in part. Fund the spring chinook Grande Ronde and Imnaha objectives, which involve some capital modifications to Lookingglass Hatchery. Do not fund the reintroduction efforts or efforts to use local endangered stocks to support harvest.

Policy Issues Identified by Sponsor: The NPT specified that the following criteria applied to their project. Criteria "a" due to the need for the master plan as required under the three-step review process and as stated by the ISRP in their review. Criteria "b" due to the numerous program measures and language in Section 7.4L of the NPPC Program. (See Part 1(b)(5) for an explanation of the policy criteria).

Discussion and Council Recommendations: There is a need to get clear direction from the managers on exactly what they want to accomplish through this planning effort so that the Council can understand and track the interrelationships between these associated projects and their progress. This is important clarification for the NEOH program and the resulting relationship through time to other projects. Until completion and approval of a master plan and support documents as part of the step 1 review process, all activities associated with these projects (8805301 NPT and Objective 1 of 8805305 ODFW) should be funded only at a level for this specific task. 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. The master plan constitutes the "new facilities" piece of the existing program. There is currently strong evidence that Lookingglass National Fish Hatchery is not capable of sustaining its current production without major capital improvements. The master plan should be able to describe the comprehensive plan for spring chinook in these two basins that include a range of alternatives- including new hatchery construction (8805301)- that would allow the program to be fully sustainable.

Adequate funds remain in the Fiscal Year 1999 contracts to complete the master plan. Fiscal Year 1999 contracts expire on January 1, 2000, and a no-cost time extension will authorize the NPT and ODFW to complete the project. This review will provide the direction needed to ensure that the master planning effort and capital expenditures are developed and defined in a productive manner. Until this review is completed, it is difficult to determine if the suggested improvements to Lookingglass are an appropriate use of capital funds in the subbasin.

Fish and Wildlife Committee: The Committee considered this proposal together with the related ODFW component (# 8805305 below). The Committee recommended that:

1. the spring chinook planning component proceed into the 3-step process;
2. a no-cost extension of existing contract be given which will permit master plan completion using Fiscal Year 1999 funds (no new funds needed);
3. a master plan to be provided no later than April 15;
4. a placeholder be established should the sponsors successfully move to step-2 activities after master plan approval;
5. that future funding decisions, including release of Fiscal Year 2000 funds in placeholder, be made in context of normal step review process;
6. Council expects ODFW to retain person to participate in master planning as soon as possible;
7. no capital improvements to Lookinglass Hatchery until master plan is completed;
8. operations and maintenance portion of existing program should continue to receive sufficient funding in the interim.

Council Recommendation: The full Council considered the Committee recommendation outlined above, and endorsed it as its decision on this project. The placeholder for potential step 2 activities is not specific to this project, but rather, will be a general capital project placeholder.

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website