Contract Description:

Fall Chinook historically spawned in the mainstem of the mid-Columbia and Snake Rivers.  The two most important spawning and early rearing areas for upriver bright fall Chinook prior to development were the mainstem Snake River above Hells Canyon and the main stem Columbia River from Celilo Falls to the confluence with the Snake River.  Construction of The Dalles Dam in 1957 and John Day Dam in 1967 inundated much of the available spawning area for fall Chinook in the mainstem Columbia River.   Congress authorized the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to mitigate for the losses caused by construction of both dams as early as 1948 with the passage of the Columbia River Fishery Development Program.  The difficulty in determining the level and location of mitigation is indicated by the long history of correspondence between the USACE and the state and federal fish agencies.  Funding for The Dalles/John Day mitigation was used to produce fall Chinook at Bonneville Hatchery and Spring Creek Hatchery, both of which are downstream from the mitigation areas.  More recently the USACE funded fall Chinook production at Priest Rapids Hatchery, which is upstream of the area of loss.  

In 2008, as part of the development of a new fish management plan, the state, federal and tribal entities party to U.S. v. Oregon engaged the USACE in reexamining the implementation of The Dalles/John Day mitigation.  The U.S. v. Oregon parties and the USACE are negotiating the mitigation level and locations to produce and release mitigation fish.  The U.S. v. Oregon parties and the USACE have exchanged information requests.  The U.S. v. Oregon parties Production Advisory Committee (PAC) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) have provided co-managers with data analyses.

The goal of the proposed project is to provide the tribes with technical assistance in developing reprogramming goals for losses in production due to construction of The Dalles and John Day Dams, as well as implementing the production reprogramming measures.  The reprogramming effort must be consistent with overall regional basin-wide objectives.    The project will have three phases.  The first phase is review and planning, and will last 1-2 years.  The second phase is developing options to achieve the reprogramming goals, including implementation methodologies and site selection.  The third phase will consist of contracting and construction activities.

The planning phase will consist of several activities.  A new staff member will be hired to lead the project, including development of the annual statement of work.  Historical documents and the more recent analyses will be reviewed.  The new staff member will provide technical support to tribal policy representatives in the development of the reprogramming goal.  Since development of the production programs needs to be consistent with existing co-manager agreements, the new staff member will participate in regional hatchery management processes.  Regional coordination activities, such as representing the tribes on the U.S. v. Oregon Production Advisory Committee and U.S. v. Oregon John Day Mitigation Workgroup, will be carried on in conjunction with co-managers.   The new staff member will also coordinate with tribal biologists to ensure consistency with tribal vision for reprogramming activities.  Planning activities will lead to development of a fish production reprogramming proposal.  The proposal will represent a unified effort to reprogram a portion of the US v OR production to upriver areas, where the fish may contribute to zone 6 fisheries.  The first phase will require two years for implementation.  

The first year of the project has focused on historical overview, delineation of the current mitigation program, and developing ongoing discussions with tribal fishery staffs.  The process of meeting with tribal staffs to develop some level of consensus amongst the tribes has proven somewhat challenging.  The structure and function of individual tribal governments is unique, and each presents its own set of challenges with respect to effective communication and planning activities.  During the early parts of the current contract Policy level discussions between comanagers provided increased clarity and direction for the Accords project, and the need for a coordinated, synchronized approach between the parent JDTDM issue and its smaller Accords project became increasingly clear.  During this time Policy level talks yielded additional guidance as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) increased its participation in the discussions.  Concurrently, meetings were held by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) to address the Spring Creek Reprogramming plan and MOA.  Both processes evolved from ongoing discussions in the US v OR case and provided additional guidance for the Accords project.

In addition, the Grant County Public Utility District (GPUD), owner of the Priest Rapids Hatchery, requested contract negotiations with the USACE to discuss a sixteen-year issue that had not been resolved.  The issue centered around two large hatchery releases groups that have anchored the JDTDM production program.  GPUD submitted a letter to the USACE in December outlining its perspective of the mitigation program operated by Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) at the Priest Rapids Hatchery.  In that letter GPUD claimed that the USACE had not funded its JDTDM program at Priest Rapids for sixteen years from 1993 - 2008. In June 2008 the USACE entered into a contract with WDFW to cover annual operations and maintenance costs for production of the annual JDTDM production at Priest Rapids Hatchery.  Subsequently, GPUD reduced its funding arrangement with WDFW to operate the facility by a commensurate amount as the newly developed USACE budget for JDTDM production at Priest Rapids.  The reduced contract budget for WDFW resulted in a continued budget problem.  The problem was inadequate funding of the JDTDM production at Priest on the part of the USACE prior to 2008. The funding shortfall led to GPUD's letter, in which the Utility requested a reimbursement contract between the USACE and WDFW to recover costs associated with the JDTDM production.  The funding problem has resulted in decreased program stability due to the lack of fully funded operation and maintenance activities, as well as rearing space.  This problem led to a Yakama Nation proposal to utilize a portion of the JDTDM Accords contract capital budget to install additional incubation infrastructure at Priest Rapids in an attempt to ensure program continuity by providing incubation space necessary for a portion of the JDTDM production lots.

The Treaty Tribal fishery benefits directly from the JDTDM production, as returning adults must transit the entire Zone 6 fishery on their way back to release sites at Priest Rapids and Ringold Springs.  This was a strong motivator behind the Yakama nation request, and one that clearly indicates the strength and commitment of the tribe to sustain mitigation fish production for the benefit of the Treaty tribal fishery.  However, the JDTDM production program is a funding responsibility of the USACE, as dictated by the authorizing language of HB 531 in support of John Day Dam construction.  Therefore, CRITFC, as manager of the JDTDM Accords project contract, is reluctant to authorize a tribal funding request for funds from the JDTDM project capital budget to support an existing USACE budget responsibility.  In light of this, and in consideration of the USACE's renewed commitment to address JDTDM issues, as presented in recent Spring Creek Reprogramming/JDTDM meetings; it is prudent and critical for CRITFC to ensure the USCAE fulfills those commitments.  In short, these commitments are as follows:

1)  Adjust current production levels as needed to fulfill both the annual 17.1M smolt release goal the annual adult return goal of 30,000 adults under the JDTDM program.
2)  Reprogram existing JDTDM production currently produced and released below Bonneville Dam (2M fall Chinook smolts and 3,800 adult returns) to upriver areas within the Zone 6 fishery.
3)  Adjust the JDTDM stock split  to 75% URB and 25% Tule fall Chinook.
4)  Consider alternative approaches to achieve the JDTDM production at Priest Rapids Hatchery (Spawning, incubation, and transfer of 3.5M eyed fall Chinook eggs and spawning and full-term rearing and release of 1.7M fall Chinook sub-yearlings)

Due to the aforementioned connections to the JDTDM program, the current JDTDM Accords project must evolve in such a way as to not outpace the USACE's efforts to fulfill its current JDTDM responsibilities.  In addition, the USACE has recently acknowledged its responsibility to fully implement the mitigation program.  The JDTDM Accords project is currently being planned in such a way as to ensure these two outcomes are realized, and this means synchronizing planning efforts to maximize efficiency of both the Accords project and the parent JDTDM program.  

The CRITFC commission has requested action on the JDTDM project in this budget cycle, and planning activities are ongoing in support of that goal.  A recent meeting with tribal fishery staffs yielded significant progress in realizing various fish production reprogramming options under the JDTDM Accords project.  Ensuring continuity and synchronization of the Accords project and the USACE's efforts to fully implement the current mitigation program paves the way for a renewed and expanded parent JDTDM program.  Expansion of the parent JDTDM program has been under consideration for decades, and the issue appears to be gaining momentum at the Policy level concurrent with development of the JDTDM Accords project.  The genesis of the Accords project was characterized by a desire to craft an interim measure complementary in nature to the larger parent JDTDM issue.