Dear Interested Party:
For Fiscal Year 2001, projects in the Columbia Gorge Province were subject to the in-depth province-based review. This province includes the Klickitat subbasin. The primary fish and wildlife management activities in the Klickitat subbasin have been passage and artificial production initiatives dating back to the early 1950s. Most of this work was funded by sources other than Bonneville, with Mitchell Act funding being a substantial fund source. More recently, Bonneville funding has been provided to the activities in the Klickitat as a component of the Yakama Nation's Yakima-Klickitat Fisheries Project.
As part of the Council decision for the Columbia Gorge Province, the Council staff worked with the Yakama Nation fisheries staff to outline a review sequence encompassing the proposed passage and production facilities.[1]
A master plan, as the first step in the Major Project Review process[2] for this project, was prepared by the Yakama Nation and the Bonneville Power Administration and submitted to the Council on May 11, 2004. The tribal master plan proposes supplementation and natural production efforts in the Klickitat subbasin on spring chinook and steelhead, while maintaining a focus on harvest augmentation for fall chinook and coho. In doing so, the project would increase production of spring chinook and steelhead at the Klickitat Hatchery and eliminate in-basin artificial production of coho. In-basin fall chinook production levels would remain the same, but half the production would be transferred from Klickitat Hatchery to a proposed new facility at Wahkiacus. The program proposes further improvements to existing facilities that would increase the ability of spring chinook and steelhead to access high quality habitat, thus improving natural production; and that would allow collection of spring chinook and steelhead broodstock to meet supplementation goals for those two species.
Council staff has prepared this issue paper on the master plan and invites comment on both the issue paper and the master plan. In particular, public comment is requested on key issues listed in the issue paper. The issue paper is not intended to constrain alternatives the Council may consider or limit Council action on this project.
Oral comments on this issue paper can be made at the Council's April 12 - 14, 2005, meeting in Boise, Idaho, and at the Council's May 10 - 12 meeting in Walla Walla, Washington. Written comments will be accepted through May 13, 2005. Comments should be mailed to Mark Walker, Director of Public Affairs, at the Council's central office in Portland and referencing Council Document 2005-03. In addition, the master plan has been submitted to the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP), and this review is anticipated in April. Based on comments and reviews received, Council staff will develop a list of alternative actions that will be considered by the Council. At the July 12 - 14, 2005 meeting in Portland the Council will consider whether to approve the Klickitat Subbasin Anadromous Fishery Master Plan.
Thank you for your interest in the Council's review of this project.
Sincerely,
Stephen L. Crow
Executive Director
[1] The proposals listed (#198811525, #198812025, #199506325 and #199701725) all link to new production initiatives by construction of significant new production facilities (i.e., Lyle Falls Broodstock Collection and Adult Monitoring Facility) and the initiation of funding of an existing facility (i.e., Klickitat Hatchery). Until completion and approval of the step review, all activities associated with these projects should be funded for this specific task. The master plan (Step 1) will describe the comprehensive plan for all species of interest including assessment plans and the design of the supplementation strategy as requested by the ISRP (ISRP Document 2000-9).
[2] The Council (September 1997) adopted a policy that built upon the master plan element of the 1995 Program to ensure that 1) new artificial production projects would be considered by the Council while the Artificial Production Review was under way, 2) ensure that these projects would be considered in the context of their roles and potential impacts within specific subbasins, and 3) receive the detailed scrutiny recommended by the ISRP prior to approval. This policy was known as the ?Three-Step Review.? It called for ?new production initiatives? to follow a basic development process that has three main steps or phases: (Step 1) conceptual planning, represented under the 1995 Program primarily by master plan development and approval; (Step 2) preliminary design and cost estimation, and environmental (i.e., National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act) review; and (Step 3) final design review prior to construction. In adopting the Three-Step Review process, the Council agreed with the ISRP's recommendation to make use of independent peer review for projects as they move through each stage of the process. On October 18, 2001 the Council adopted an updated review process called the Major Project Review process that incorporates the three-step review process (Council Document 2001-29).
