FY 2000 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

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Finalization of Walla Walla Hatchery Master Plan and NEOH Umatilla Hatchery Supplemental Master Plan or availability of funding may delay the project.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Comments: It seems premature to proceed with another hatchery patterned after the Umatilla Hatchery and its associated satellite facilities until that program has undergone a review. The information now available to us suggests there are perhaps possibilities in the approach, but significant adjustments will be required. As one example, it seems fruitless to attempt to establish naturally reproducing populations of salmon in the face of high fishing rates that now occur in the ocean and mainstem Columbia River. This requires either an adjustment in the objectives or an enlarged strategy to bring the harvest managers into the picture. The project seems to be rushing into design and construction without adequate information. We have concerns about the absence of an analysis that examines the feasibility of the hatchery approach in this situation. It is unfortunate that hatchery programs can not begin with pilot projects to test their feasibility. This one budgets $6.4 million for FY 2000 with no out-year costs, but there would be O&M costs in out years.

Comment:

Comment:

Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? NA - Capital construction project. Should be reviewed by architects and engineers.

Milestone Criteria 3: Met? NA -

Resource Criteria 4: Met? NA -

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Discussion/Background: The master plan associated with this project is being developed as a supplement to the Umatilla Hatchery Master Plan and will include the additional spring chinook production and the facilities required to meet the spring chinook production objectives as outlined in the original master plan. The goal is to produce 589,000 spring chinook yearlings in the South Fork Walla Walla River as initially proposed in the Umatilla Hatchery Master Plan and the 1993 draft supplement. In addition, this master plan will address relocation of production of 100,000 spring chinook from Carson hatchery and 360,000 spring chinook from Umatilla Hatchery to the South Fork Walla Walla. This relocation will address the need for more favorable water conditions at the South Fork facility for chinook production and allow for more localized operations at Umatilla. The sponsor is currently developing the master plan for submittal to the Council as part of the step 1 review process.

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

Sponsor Policy Response: 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 program measure 7.4L.1 supports artificial production. Criteria "c" due to the extirpation of spring chinook, goals for adult returns, natural production, Indian and non-Indian harvest and broodstock collection cannot be met without employment of this project.

Council Recommendation: 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 maintained until the Council receives and approves step 1 documents that clearly answers the technical questions as outlined in the letter sent to the CTUIR staff dated November 5, 1998. 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. Adequate funds remain in the Fiscal Year1999 contracts to complete the master plan. Fiscal Year 1999 contracts expire on April, 2000, and a no-cost time extension will authorize the CTUIR to complete the project. 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 recommendation above includes the following particulars:

1. Council staff and sponsor establish a date certain for master plan submission;
2. the capital projects placeholder will be established and available should step 1 be successfully completed and approved, and step 2 work is required in Fiscal Year 2000;
3. all future funding decisions, including release of placeholder funds will be contingent on step approvals.

The Council does not accept that portion of the ISRP recommendation that planning activities should not be funded at this time. The reasons for its decision are the same as those discussed in regard to project (12) above, and those are adopted here by this reference. Similarly, approval for this limited planning should not be interpreted or understood to suggest that the Council believes that this facility, or any other facility in step review, will ultimately be constructed. Rather, approvals must be secured at each stage of the review process. The Council's willingness to recommend limited planning funding is largely a product of its belief that the information gathered in the master plan process will be useful and necessary in subbasin planning.

Comment: