Response for project 198805301: Ne Or Hatchery Master Plan - N
Comment on proposed FY 2006 budget
The proposed budget for FY2006 is consistent with our expectations.
Accomplishments since the last review
| Council 3-step Process: Step 2 | On October 13, 2004, in Missoula, MT, the NPCC approved the step 2 review elements of the Northeast Oregon Hatchery Spring Chinook Master Plan and recommended, with conditions, activities associated with step 3. |
Development of artificial production facilities in Northeast Oregon is authorized in Section 7.4 of the 1994 Northwest Power Conservation Council’s (NPCC; formerly Northwest Power and Planning Council) Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (FWP). Specifically, Section 7.4L1 authorizes the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) to fund planning design, construction, operation, maintenance and evaluation of artificial production facilities to raise chinook salmon and steelhead for enhancement in the Hood, Umatilla, Grande Ronde, and Imnaha Rivers. The purpose of this project is to plan and develop conservation production facilities in the Imnaha and Grande Ronde rivers necessary to implement salmon recovery programs for native, ESA listed, spring chinook salmon. This project is led by the Nez Perce Tribe in coordination with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NOAA-Fisheries, BPA, NPCC, U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and other team consultants. The NPCC approved the Grande Ronde and Imnaha Spring Chinook Master Plan on September 20, 2000. The NPCC approved the step 2 review elements of the Northeast Oregon Hatchery Spring Chinook Master Plan and recommended, with conditions, activities associated with step 3 on October 13, 2004.
FY 2006 goals and anticipated accomplishments
| Council 3-step Process: Step 3 | Develop and submit to NPCC step 3 Final Design Documents for proposed facilities on Lostine River and modifications to Lookingglass Hatchery and Imnaha satellite facility. Begin construction. |
Fall 2005 - Submit Final Design and associated step 3 documents. Anticipate a recommendation from the NPCC to proceed with construction. Winter 2006 - Begin construction. Spring 2006 - Continue construction. Summer 2006 - Continue construction.
Subbasin planning
How is this project consistent with subbasin plans?
The NEOH project responds specifically to Aquatic Objective 1A and 2B in the Imnaha Subbasin Plan. Aquatic Objective 1A: Achieve escapement objectives show in Table 5 within 24 years (page 18). Strategies 1A1-1A5 improve focal species recruitment by addressing out of basin limiting factors, improving basin wide coordination of management efforts, implementing a common monitoring and evaluation program, ensuring adequate enforcement of conservation practices, laws, and regulations, and promoting the use of a mix of hatchery and natural production strategies (page 18 Plan, page 10 Supplement.). Aquatic Objective 2B: Increase anadromous fish productivity and production, as well as life stage-specific survival, through artificial production (page 21). Strategies 2B1 - 2B5 incorporate the use of artificial production to improve anadromous production/productivity. Specifically, the strategies address the maximization of hatchery effectiveness in the subbasin through the continued implementation of the LSRCP and NEOH programs, and support the continuation of existing natural production strategies via artificial production programs (page 21 Plan, page 10 Supplement).
How do goals match subbasin plan priorities?
Limiting factors (e.g., out of basin effects, species interactions, genetic effects, fisheries management issues, research uncertainties) that were not included in the Qualitative Habitat Assessment (QHA) model were NOT prioritized in the Imnaha subbasin planning process. Increasing anadromous species' SAR, however, is recognized by planners as one of the highest priorities in the subbasin.... Further, planners felt strongly about the need to address research uncertainties (i.e., data gaps/monitoring and evaluation), as our current lack of understanding limits our ability to effectively manage imperiled focal species (page 8 - Imnaha Supplement). Further, this project has support and agreement of co-managers ODFW, CTUIR, USFWS, and the U.S. vs. Oregon forum and is identified in the Draft 2005-2007 Implementation Plan for the Updated Proposed Action developed by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and the Bonneville Power Administration.