851 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Steve Crow 503-222-5161 

Portland, Oregon 97204-1348 Executive Director 800-452-5161 

www.nwcouncil.org Fax: 503-820-2370

Melinda S. Eden 

Chair 

Oregon

Jim Kempton 

Vice-Chair 

Idaho

Joan M. Dukes 

Oregon 

Frank L. Cassidy Jr. 

“Larry” 

Washington 

Tom Karier 

Washington 

Judi Danielson 

Idaho 

Bruce A. Measure 

Montana 

Rhonda Whiting 

Montana

March 15, 2005 

Dear Interested Party: 

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks proposes to use facilities at Sekokini Springs to aid in 

the recovery of genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout populations in the Flathead River 

drainage. The proposed activities at Sekokini Springs are a component of Bonneville Project 

1991-019-03 (Hungry Horse Mitigation), which addresses fishery losses caused by the 

construction and operation of Hungry Horse Dam in the Flathead Basin. This project also 

implements habitat restoration, fish passage improvement, off-site mitigation and monitoring 

pertaining to Hungry Horse Mitigation and includes enhancement and restoration at numerous 

tributaries in the basin. 

A master plan, as the first step in the Major Project Review process1

 for this project, was 

prepared by Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks and the Bonneville Power Administration and 

submitted to the Council on November 3, 2004. The proposed Sekokini Springs site will provide 

rearing areas for donor fish whose progeny will be released to targeted restoration streams. 

Additionally, the site will provide isolation facilities within which wild spawners can be held for 

collection of milt for infusion into the existing state broodstock to introduce additional genetic 

complement. In addition, there is an educational component of the project to promote public 

awareness of the conservation of native species, particularly westslope cutthroat trout. 

Council staff has prepared an issue paper (Council Document 2005-04) on the master 

plan that can be found on the Council’s web site, www.nwcouncil.org . The Council invites 

comment on this issue paper and on 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 

 

1

 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). 
Sekokini Springs Natural Rearing Facility and Educational Center Master Plan, Issue Paper, March 2005 NPCC. 

2

the Council may consider or limit Council action on this project. Copies of the issue paper are 

available by calling the Council’s central office in Portland (1-800-452-5161) and requesting 

Council Document 2005-04 

Oral comments on the 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 referencing 

Council Document 2005-04. In addition, the master plan has been submitted to the Independent 

Scientific Review Panel (ISRP), and their 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 Sekokini Springs Natural Rearing Facility and Educational 

Center Master Plan (see attachment). 

 Thank you for your interest in the Council’s review of this project. 

 Sincerely, 

Stephen L. Crow 

Executive Director 
Sekokini Springs Natural Rearing Facility and Educational Center Master Plan, Issue Paper, March 2005 NPCC. 

3

Step 1 Review Process - Sekokini Springs Natural Rearing Facility and Educational Center 

Master Plan 

Week2

 Description

1 (November 3, 2004) Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks submits Master Plan to NPCC 

 2 (November 18, 2004) BPA/NPCC initiates Peer Review 

14(February 8, 2005)3 NPCC staff Comments regarding Master Plan and draft Issue 

Paper to Fish and Wildlife Committee (packet) 

2- 23 Additional materials provided to Peer Review, if necessary 

15 (February 15, 2005) NPCC Fish and Wildlife Committee reviews the Master Plan and 

draft Issue Paper 

18 (March 8, 2005) Fish and Wildlife Committee Recommendation to Council 

(packet) regarding draft Issue Paper 

19 (March 15 - 17, 2005) NPCC considers releasing Master Plan and Issue Paper for 

review and comment 

 23 (April 12 - 13, 2005) NPCC takes comments on Master Plan at Council Meeting 

 27 (May 10 - 12, 2005) NPCC takes public comments at Council Meeting 

 27 (May 13, 2005) Peer Review findings submitted to NPCC 

27 (May 13, 2005) Due date for all written comments on Master Plan 

 24-31 NPCC staff prepares a summary of comments and potential 

alternatives for decision 

 31 (June 7, 2005) NPCC staff provides summary of comments and potential 

alternatives to Fish and Wildlife Committee to consider 

recommendation (packet) 

32 (June 14, 2005) Fish and Wildlife Committee considers potential alternatives for 

recommendation 

 35 (July 5, 2005) NPCC staff provides Decision Memo with Fish and Wildlife 

Committee recommendation to Council (packet) 

36 (July 12 - 14, 2005) Council considers approval of Master Plan 

________________________________________ 

w:\mf\ww\hatchery\hungry horse\031605finalsekokiniissuepapercoverltr.doc 

 

2

 Due to the needed coordination with Fish and Wildlife Committee and Council meetings, this schedule is based on 

the minimum amount of time required. 

3

 Due to the December ‘04 Council agendas with subbasin plans and the backlog of reviews for the ISRP, this period 

of the schedule was extended. 
851 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Steve Crow 503-222-5161 

Portland, Oregon 97204-1348 Executive Director 800-452-5161 

www.nwcouncil.org Fax: 503-820-2370

Melinda S. Eden 

Chair 

Oregon

Jim Kempton 

Vice-Chair 

Idaho

Joan M. Dukes 

Oregon 

Frank L. Cassidy Jr. 

“Larry” 

Washington 

Tom Karier 

Washington 

Judi Danielson 

Idaho 

Bruce A. Measure 

Montana 

Rhonda Whiting 

Montana

ISSUE PAPER 

Sekokini Springs Natural Rearing Facility and Educational Center 

Master Plan1

March 15, 2005 

Council Document 2005-04 

 

1

 The master plan was prepared for Bonneville Power Administration by Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (Project # 

1991-019-03, Hungry horse Mitigation). You may obtain a copy of the master plan and support documents from 

Bonneville Power Administration's web site. 

http://www.efw.bpa.gov/Integrated_Fish_and_Wildlife_Program/SekokiniSpringsMasterPlanFinal.pdf 

These documents can be viewed or downloaded for printing. If you do not have access to the Internet, please call 

Ron Morinaka at 503-230-5365. 
Sekokini Springs Natural Rearing Facility and Educational Center Master Plan, Issue Paper, March 2005 NPCC. 

2

Staff Issue Paper2

Sekokini Springs Natural Rearing Facility and Educational Center 

Master Plan

I. Introduction

The master plan, submitted by Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, proposes to use the 

Sekokini Springs site to aid in the recovery of genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout (WCT) 

populations in the Flathead River drainage. The Sekokini Springs site will provide rearing areas 

for donor fish whose progeny will be released to targeted restoration streams. Additionally, the 

site will provide isolation facilities within which wild spawners can be held for collection of milt 

for infusion into the existing state broodstock to introduce additional genetic complement. In 

addition, there is an educational component of the project to promote public awareness of the 

conservation of native species, particularly the westslope cutthroat trout. 

II. Relationship to the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program 

This project is part of the Hungry Horse Mitigation Program (HHMP) funded by 

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). In 1991, the Fisheries Mitigation Plan for Losses 

Attributable to the Construction and Operation of Hungry Horse Dam (Mitigation Plan) was 

prepared by Montana Fish, Wildlife, & Parks (MFWP) and the Confederated Salish and 

Kootenai Tribes (CSKT). This Mitigation Plan provided the Council with documentation of 

fisheries and habitat losses associated with construction and operation of Hungry Horse Dam 

(HHD) and a flexible strategy to mitigate for those losses. It addressed six specific program 

measures identified in the 1987 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program and 

subsequent program amendments. The Council approved the loss statement, including annual 

fisheries losses of 250,000 juvenile bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and 65,000 migratory 

westslope cutthroat trout (WCT, Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi) from the Flathead Lake 

populations. In addition, an estimated 175,483 adfluvial WCT juveniles were lost in tributary 

reaches of the Hungry Horse Reservoir (HHR) and Flathead Lake due to construction of the 

HHD. The Mitigation Plan identified 77 miles (124 kilometers (km)) of critical, low gradient 

spawning and rearing habitat in streams that were inundated and lost when HHR filled. 

 The Hungry Horse Dam Fisheries Mitigation Implementation Plan (Implementation 

Plan) was adopted by the Council in 1993 and funded by the Bonneville Power Administration 

(Bonneville). The Implementation Plan describes specific measures to protect and enhance 

resident fish and aquatic habitat affected by Hungry Horse Dam that do not require changes in 

Hungry Horse Dam operation. The hatchery portion of the HHMP is transitioning to 

 

2

 This issue paper was prepared by the staff of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 
Sekokini Springs Natural Rearing Facility and Educational Center Master Plan, Issue Paper, March 2005 NPCC. 

3

experimental culture of native species as directed by the Mitigation Plan and the Implementation 

Plan. The Council approved the plan and amended it into the 1994 Fish and Wildlife Program 

(Measure 10.3A). 

A decision tree in the Implementation Plan directs the cooperating agencies to experiment 

with artificial propagation of native species to facilitate species restoration. Work at the Sekokini 

Springs site addresses artificial propagation of WCT. The site offers a unique combination of a 

small hatchery facility and pond habitat suitable for rearing native WCT in a controlled 

naturalized environment. 

Mitigation projects under the Hungry Horse Mitigation Plan by MFWP and CSKT have 

parallel charges and have been implemented consecutively on several objectives during recent 

years. Sekokini Springs is a component of BPA project 1991-019-03 (Hungry Horse Mitigation), 

which addresses fishery losses caused by the construction and operation of Hungry Horse Dam 

in the Flathead Basin. This project implements habitat restoration, fish passage improvement, 

off-site mitigation and monitoring pertaining to Hungry Horse Mitigation and includes 

enhancement and restoration at numerous tributaries in the basin. In association with this effort, 

BPA project 1991-019-01 (Research, Monitoring, and Restore Native Species) included both 

stream restoration projects and monitoring within the Flathead Basin to verify responses of 

native fish communities, including WCT, to Hungry Horse Dam mitigation measures. 

III. Historical and Current Status and Management of Westslope Cutthroat Trout 

A. Status 

 

 The Flathead River is a major subbasin in the Columbia River Basin of northwestern 

Montana. Principal tributaries of the Flathead River are the North Fork Flathead, Middle Fork 

Flathead, South Fork Flathead, Stillwater, Swan and Lower Flathead rivers. The Flathead River 

flows into Flathead Lake. Historically, it is believed that WCT occupied all of the streams and 

lakes to which they had access in the Flathead River subbasin. 

 Seventy-seven miles (124 km) of high quality, low gradient spawning and rearing habitat 

were lost due to inundation when Hungry Horse Reservoir filled. Hungry Horse Dam is located 

on the South Fork Flathead River 5.3 miles (8.5 km) above the confluence with the mainstem of 

the river. The dam was completed in September 1952, and is operated for flood control and 

power production. The dam eliminated access to about 42 percent of the traditional spawning 

grounds in the South Fork for westslope cutthroat and bull trout. In total, habitat degradation and 

fish passage barriers have eliminated nearly 60 percent of the habitat once available to native 

westslope cutthroat and bull trout in the Flathead subbasin upstream of Flathead Lake. 

 Currently the WCT populations in the Flathead subbasin occupy a small percentage of 

their historic range and have been listed as a Fish Species of Special Concern in Montana and a 

sensitive species by Region I of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) has recently determined that the WCT is not warranted for listing at this time. 

 Nonnative species or environmental damage in some locations threatens remnant 

populations of genetically pure WCT, creating a need to conserve the genetic integrity and 

diversity of the species. Genetic inventories of existing stocks of WCT have revealed that 
Sekokini Springs Natural Rearing Facility and Educational Center Master Plan, Issue Paper, March 2005 NPCC. 

4

hybridized/introgressed populations in headwater lakes are threatening pure populations 

downstream. 

 Recent studies have determined that hybridization of WCT and rainbow trout has 

occurred in 55 and 56 percent of sites studied in the North and Middle forks of the Flathead 

River, respectively. Temporal comparisons of these results indicate that hybridization has spread 

upstream within North Fork tributaries since 1984. 

The Sekokini Springs facility is located near the mainstem Flathead River, within which 

genetically pure WCT abundance has shown a steady decline in recent years. Genetic 

introgression and competition with nonnative trout species has also been documented in 

tributaries of the Flathead River subbasin. Although the state’s captive brood stock is available 

to re-establish WCT in many areas, a source of genetically pure WCT from “nearest neighbor” 

wild sources within the Flathead River subbasin is desired to replace certain populations locally. 

B. Management 

In the mid 1960s it was determined that WCT were highly vulnerable to angling, which 

was thought to be a contributing factor to their decline. Over time, angling limits for WCT have 

become much more restrictive. Angling for cutthroat trout is catch-and-release, except for the 

Middle Fork Flathead and the Great Bear Wilderness, and South Fork tributaries and lakes 

upstream of Hungry Horse Reservoir and the Bob Marshall Wilderness, where it is legal to 

harvest three fish if they are less than 12 inches in length. Since the early 1970s, additional 

harvest management protection has been afforded to WCT as managers developed a policy of not 

planting exotic fish species in areas where they would compete with native species. 

Additionally, since 1982 a policy has restricted the use of non-native fish in private ponds 

connected to the Flathead Lake and river system. Currently, there is no allowable harvest in the 

contiguous Flathead subbasin. 

IV. Summary of the Proposed Production Plan 

The Sekokini Springs site will be used in the restoration of WCT in the Flathead subbasin 

by preserving and replicating pure genetic stocks from donor populations within the Flathead to 

preclude potential listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Wild juveniles from endemic 

donor populations would be raised in created natural rearing habitat at the site to preserve 

behavioral traits and provide gametes for re-establishing progeny in selected areas where the 

species has been impacted or extirpated. The Sekokini Springs site will also conserve remnant 

populations that are threatened by nonnative species or environmental damage. 

The offspring of wild WCT reared at Sekokini Springs will be used primarily to initiate 

wild spawning runs in restored or reconnected habitat. Once spawning runs are established, 

harvest will be controlled through fishing regulations. Additionally, surplus fish could be 

outplanted into lakes being chemically rehabilitated as part of the WCT conservation program, 

and in closed-basin lakes to provide angler harvest as part of Montana’s Family Fishing program. 

All fish planted from Sekokini Springs will be marked (e.g. fin clips, otolith, fluorescent 

pigments or chemical markers). Because there is limited information on appropriate stocking 

densities into streams and tributaries fish, from Sekokini Springs will normally be released to 
Sekokini Springs Natural Rearing Facility and Educational Center Master Plan, Issue Paper, March 2005 NPCC. 

5

targeted recovery streams at a density not to exceed the maximum density of wild trout in a 

comparable stream order, gradient, and flow range. Experiments to examine stocking densities 

and determine the appropriate stocking levels may occur. Target streams to be stocked include 

previously fishless and degraded habitats within the historic range of WCT that have been 

recently recovered, or vacant habitats that have been blocked to fish passage by man-made 

obstacles. To be considered for stocking, all target streams must be absent of WCT, Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout and rainbow trout, or isolated from wild spawners to minimize the expansion of 

introgressed or hybridized stocks in the Flathead subbasin. 

A. Production Strategies 

 The proposed Sekokini Springs facility will incorporate two conservation strategies into 

the program. The first component is the collection of juveniles from donor streams for 

production of progeny to be outplanted into restoration streams and lakes. The second 

component is the collection of milt from wild spawners for infusion of genetic material into the 

state’s existing WCT captive broodstock. These strategies are described below. 

1. Juvenile Donor Stock Collection - - Creation of Progeny from Local Stock Conservation 

Strategy 

 There are two options for collection of a donor stock at the Sekokini Springs facility. The 

preferred option is to collect juvenile WCT from local streams that have been genetically tested 

and determined to contain WCT that are 100 percent genetically pure. The donor populations 

would also be required to have a history of fish pathogen testing, and a negative record for 

pathogens of concern. 

If juvenile collection does not allow for the appropriate number of donor fish required for 

the program, the second option, collecting gametes from wild spawners, may be considered. 

Because the program necessitates collection every year and access issues make gamete collection 

difficult, juvenile collection is preferred for the establishment of a “nearest neighbor” stock. 

No more than 25 percent of the juvenile population in a given reach will be collected for 

donor stock. If the number of juveniles within a population decreases, as evidenced through 

monitoring and evaluation procedures (population estimation through electroshocking 

assessments), fewer fish will be removed, or collection will be stopped. 

The specific number of juvenile donor fish to be collected is dependent upon several 

factors, one of which is the estimated mortality rate of wild donor fish as they acclimate to 

conditioning ponds. Other factors that contribute to the number of juveniles to be collected 

include the relative abundance of juvenile WCT within the donor populations, the carrying 

capacity of the proposed recipient streams, and known survival percentages of various life stages 

of reared WCT. 

 Collected juveniles will be reared to maturity within ponds that hold each collection 

year/genetic stock. Upon maturation, a false-attraction weir will be used to collect maturing 

adults from the conditioning ponds. These fish will then be spawned adjacent to the ponds. 

Mature fish will not be transferred to the hatchery building. An alternative method for adult 

collection will be to draw down the pond, collect fish, and sort for ripeness. Females will be 
Sekokini Springs Natural Rearing Facility and Educational Center Master Plan, Issue Paper, March 2005 NPCC. 

6

live-spawned, and sperm from two males, one as a primary source and one as a “back up” would 

be used to fertilize each egg lot. 

2. Milt Collection - - Infusion of New Material into the State’s Existing WCT Captive 

Broodstock Strategy 

 The Sekokini Springs facility will be used to hold wild spawners for collection of genetic 

material. This genetic material, in the form of milt from spawning males, will be infused into the 

state’s captive broodstock. The infusion of new genetic material into the captive broodstock is 

considered to be an important component of WCT conservation to increase the genetic diversity 

of the state’s stock. Because the transfer of live fish to hatcheries is prohibited in Montana, milt 

is the best option for infusion. Milt is preferred for this activity because it is the easiest to obtain 

and the collection is less disruptive to wild runs. The collection of gametes is a difficult task and 

will take place only when genetic infusion is deemed necessary by managers. 

Infusion of new genetic material into the captive broodstock, although part of this Master 

Plan, is separate from establishing the “nearest neighbor” stocks. The Sekokini Springs facility 

was utilized in 2003 to infuse wild gametes into the captive broodstock for the first time since 

the stock was established in 1983 – 1984. 

Adults collected for milt collection will be captured randomly during the migration 

period. Fish would be transported to Sekokini Springs for holding until they spawn. Milt will be 

collected from ripe males and transported in individual containers with oxygen, and on ice, to the 

hatchery facilities producing the captive broodstock. 

B. Facilities 

 The proposed action at the Sekokini Springs site will modify existing facilities and 

structures and construct new facilities and rearing habitat for the conservation-based production 

program. Site elements have been identified as either priority or for future development. The 

sponsor is hopeful that some of the future elements will be completed through non-Bonneville 

funded efforts. These future elements of the site development were selected to assist with 

budgeting and are considered not essential to establishing fish rearing on-site, but are a 

component of additional educational facilities that are necessary to meet the primary objectives 

of this project. 

The priority project elements: 

• Construction of new incubation facilities in the existing hatchery building. 

• Modification and conversion of two existing earthen ponds into four donor fish and juvenile 

rearing ponds. 

• Construction of a concrete pad near the rearing ponds for a spawning area. 

• Construction of educational trails, and associated interpretive signage, that comply with the 

Americans with Disabilities Act. 

• Construction of a trap/fish barrier at the outfall stream reach to prevent fish from escaping 

into the Flathead River or entering the facility from the river. 

• Construction of an education facility, parking area and USFS, approved vault toilet. 
Sekokini Springs Natural Rearing Facility and Educational Center Master Plan, Issue Paper, March 2005 NPCC. 

7

• Construction of a new duplex for personnel, including a drinking water supply well and 

septic field. 

• Upgrade of the electrical service. 

• Installation of a pre-fabricated storage facility. 

• Addition of a new shed roof extension. 

• Construction of a water control structure on an existing drained pond to restore wetland 

conditions. 

• Installation of a false-attraction weir within each brood pond to aid in collection of broodfish, 

The future development project elements: 

• Construction of an overlook on the lower stream at an oxbow bend. 

• Creation of two viewing windows, installed below the waterline, to serve as educational 

tools. 

• Construction of a wetland area access path and viewing platform. 

• Construction of a natural-type stream habitat, from the existing hatchery building and ending 

at the Flathead River. 

C. Capital Costs 

 The total cost associated with the proposed Sekokini Springs Natural Rearing Facility 

and Educational Center is $2,586,5453

. As proposed, the construction could occur over a fiveyear period, but higher-prioritized elements of the project may be completed sooner than 

scheduled if funding becomes available. Some modifications to existing structures were 

completed in 2001 and 20024. The highest-priority elements are to remodel the hatchery 

building, develop water conveyance channels, and construct the ponds so that fish rearing can be 

initiated. The total cost associated with this phase is $2,043,261. The future development phase 

that includes stream channel habitat and viewing windows is estimated to cost $543,284. 

The proposal as defined in the master plan is not expected to go through additional step 

reviews (i.e., combination type step review) unless critical uncertainties are not adequately 

addressed during this review. This is primarily based on the degree of anticipated engineering 

and design associated with the proposed project. 

Annual operation and maintenance costs after all facilities are fully developed would be 

approximate $250,000 annually. Monitoring and evaluation is estimated to cost about $90,000 

annually. 

V. Key Questions and Issues 

The Council invites comment on any aspect of the issue paper or master plan. Particular 

emphasis is encouraged on the following questions: 

1. Concept 

 

3

 This cost includes an anticipated cost associated with final designs and permitting of $318,018 and construction 

management of $148,408. 

4

 Some repairs and remodeling to the hatchery building have already been accomplished by MFWP. 
Sekokini Springs Natural Rearing Facility and Educational Center Master Plan, Issue Paper, March 2005 NPCC. 

8

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks undertook an intensive planning process using existing 

knowledge of the habitat and native fish stocks. The master plan has focused and elaborated on 

two conservation production strategies. Do the potential benefits from the project outweigh the 

potential genetic and ecological risks? Are the risks associated with no action equal or greater 

than what might be expected from the proposed project? Are there other lower-risk alternatives 

that Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks should consider that would meet its management goals? 

Are there less-costly alternatives? 

2. Habitat Restoration 

Is the habitat capability in these targeted streams sufficient to initiate and sustain wild 

spawning runs as outlined in the master plan? Is the timing of the actions complementary? 

3. Educational Elements 

Is it appropriate for the fish and wildlife program to fund the education component of the 

proposal to promote public awareness of the conservation of native species? In the past, the 

program usually has treated these elements as a discretionary; should priority be placed on the 

artificial production component of the proposal and any decision on the education component 

postponed to a later date? 

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 referencing 

Council Document 2005-??. In addition, the master plan has been submitted to the Independent 

Scientific Review Panel (ISRP), and its 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 Sekokini Springs Natural Rearing Facility and Educational Center Master 

Plan. 

________________________________________ 

w:\mf\ww\hatchery\hungry horse\031605finalsekokiniissuepaper.doc