FY07-09 proposal 200003800
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | NEOH Walla Walla Hatchery - Three Step Master Planning Process |
Proposal ID | 200003800 |
Organization | Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation |
Short description | Complete 3-Step Master Planning process for NEOH Walla Walla Hatchery to produce spring chinook salmon for release in the Walla Walla River Basin. |
Information transfer | Master Plan and design documents will be available through BPA |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
Contacts
Contact | Organization | |
---|---|---|
Form submitter | ||
Gary James | Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation | garyjames@ctuir.com |
All assigned contacts | ||
Julie Burke | Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reserva | julieburke@ctuir.com |
Gary James | Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation | garyjames@ctuir.com |
Brian Zimmerman | CTUIR | brianzimmerman@ctuir.com |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Walla Walla
Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
---|---|---|---|
455129 | 1181320 | South Fork Walla Walla River | South Fork Walla Walla Adult Holding and Spawning Facility |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Chinook All PopulationsSection 4. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishments |
---|---|
2005 | 1) 3rd Draft Master Plan completed 2) Final Draft Master Plan completed |
2001 | Adult trap incorportated into the construction of the Nursery Bridge Dam Ladder |
1998 | 1) 2nd Draft Master Plan developed 2) Spring Chinook Temperature/Flow Investigative Report updated |
1997 | Water supply for hatchery constructed as part of South Fork Walla Walla Adult Holding and Spawning Facility |
1996 | Conceptual Design for hatchery completed as part of design for South Fork Walla Walla Spring Chinook Adult Holding and Spawning Facility |
1993 | 1) Draft Master Plan developed 2) Investigative Report on Flow and Temperature for spring Chinook completed |
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
---|---|---|---|
BPA | 198343500 | Umatilla Hatchery O&M - CTUIR | The O&M project will provide technical review and input on facilities designed under this proposal. Project will also provide for operation and maintenance of the facilities after completion. |
BPA | 199604601 | Walla Walla River Basin Fish H | The habitat project will enhance the natural production capability of habitat where adult returns from this project will be spawning and rearing. |
BPA | 199601100 | Juv Screens & Traps Wallawalla | This passage project provides juvenile screening, bypass, and trapping facilities for increasing survival of outmigrants in the Walla Walla Basin. The project also provided adult ladders to increase survival of adult migrants as well as trapping facilities for broodstock collection. |
BPA | 199802000 | Walla Walla R. Habitat Assess. | This project conducts natural production M&E in the Washington portion of the subbasin. Will also provide input on RM&E Plan associated with this proposal. |
BPA | 200003900 | Walla Walla River Basin Monito | The M&E project will develop the RM&E Plan associated with this proposal. It will also monitor adult returns and the natural production success of fish produced under this project. |
BPA | 200003300 | Walla Walla River Fish Passage | The Fish Passage Operations project will provide broodstock collection and transportation for brood and adult outplants associated with this proposal. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
---|---|---|---|
Restore spring chinook to the Walla Walla Subbasin | Complete the 3-Step Master Planning proces to construct hatchery facilities to assist in the Walla Walla Subbasin spring chinook restoration program. | Walla Walla | Aquatic Strategies Section 7.3.1 - Additional Fish Enhancement Efforts |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Council 3-step Process: Step 1 | Step 1 Master Planning Process | CTUIR has submitted the Step 1 Walla Walla Hatchery Master Plan to BPA and Council staff. CTUIR will provide additional materials to NPCC and ISRP for peer review as necessary. | 10/1/2006 | 12/31/2006 | $37,000 |
Biological objectives Restore spring chinook to the Walla Walla Subbasin |
Metrics |
||||
Council 3-step Process: Step 2 | Step 2 Master Planning Process | CTUIR will submit information and responses to technical questions to NPCC and ISRP as needed for Step 2 Review. | 1/1/2007 | 9/30/2008 | $95,000 |
Biological objectives Restore spring chinook to the Walla Walla Subbasin |
Metrics |
||||
Produce Design and/or Specifications | Step 2 Preliminary Designs | Produce preliminary designs for Walla Walla Hatchery | 1/1/2007 | 9/30/2008 | $100,000 |
Biological objectives Restore spring chinook to the Walla Walla Subbasin |
Metrics |
||||
Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation | Produce NEPA Compliance Documentation | BPA will produce necessary NEPA compliance documentation for Walla Walla Hatchery as part of Step 2 of the Three Step Master Planning process. | 1/1/2007 | 9/30/2008 | $250,000 |
Biological objectives Restore spring chinook to the Walla Walla Subbasin |
Metrics |
||||
Council 3-step Process: Step 3 | Step 3 Master Planning Process | CTUIR will submit information and responses to technical questions to NPCC and ISRP as needed for Step 3 review. | 10/1/2008 | 9/30/2009 | $54,000 |
Biological objectives Restore spring chinook to the Walla Walla Subbasin |
Metrics |
||||
Produce Design and/or Specifications | Step 3 Final Designs | Produce final designs for Walla Walla Hatchery | 10/1/2008 | 9/30/2009 | $200,000 |
Biological objectives Restore spring chinook to the Walla Walla Subbasin |
Metrics |
||||
Manage and Administer Projects | Master Planning Budget Packages | Complete statement of work and budget packages for Steps 2 and 3 of the Master Planning Process | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2008 | $10,000 |
Biological objectives Restore spring chinook to the Walla Walla Subbasin |
Metrics |
||||
Produce Status Report | Status Reporting | Complete Pisces Quarterly Reports for BPA | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $3,000 |
Biological objectives Restore spring chinook to the Walla Walla Subbasin |
Metrics |
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Other | Subcontracts - Design/Construction and NEPA Compliance | $175,000 | $175,000 | $200,000 |
Personnel | [blank] | $47,844 | $26,267 | $27,746 |
Fringe Benefits | @35% rate + insurance supplement | $14,488 | $7,198 | $7,604 |
Supplies | [blank] | $450 | $250 | $500 |
Travel | [blank] | $4,414 | $2,344 | $3,400 |
Overhead | @40% rate | $26,479 | $14,316 | $15,700 |
Totals | $268,675 | $225,375 | $254,950 |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
Total itemized budget: | $749,000 |
Total work element budget: | $749,000 |
Cost sharing
Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Totals | $0 | $0 | $0 |
Section 9. Project future
FY 2010 estimated budget: $7,000,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $7,000,000 |
Comments: Some of 7.0M construction cost may carryover into FY2011 |
Future O&M costs: Projected additional O&M costs directly related to hatchery operation are $313,000 for FY2011 for partial year activities and $727,000 for a full year of activities in FY2012. These costs do not include current or projected O&M costs conducted under the Umatilla Hatchery Satellite Facilities O&M project for the existing facility which would also be incorporated into the total hatchery O&M budget.
Termination date: FY2011
Comments: This project would terminate with the construction of Walla Walla Hatchery. O&M of the facility is anticipated to occur under another project - either the current Umatilla Hatchery Satellite Facilities O&M project or a new project.
Final deliverables: Construction of Walla Walla Hatchery
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Response to ISRP Comments - 200003800 | Jul 2006 |
Reviews and recommendations
FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Do Not Fund |
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense |
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: This proposal is to develop the Master Plan for Walla Walla. More detailed review and evaluation would be encompassed in a Three-Step process, which the ISRP supports. A history of the Master Plan process is described. An adequate summary or review of the history of hatchery fish in the watershed would improve the presentation. Also missing was a discussion or model to demonstrate the likelihood of establishing a wild run from hatchery fish. Furthermore, this proposal offers no new "compelling" information (over the past reviews) to merit further consideration. In brief, a major concern of the ISRP arising from the proposal was the immediate use of the Carson Stock. In the past, the ISRP commented that a scientifically sound justification was not given for construction of this facility to increase hatchery fish production with Carson stock. These comments still apply. It is a proposal to produce, as soon as possible, adult fish for harvest. Waters of the Walla Walla Basin are viewed, by the sponsors, as a production area that cannot produce the desired harvest, so a hatchery is needed to meet that harvest. Hatcheries can be useful tools in the production of fish for harvest, in general. As stated previously, if the Walla Walla Basin and the hatchery is to be viewed as a fish-farming operation, there are few technical questions concerning the proposal. If, however, native stocks of Walla Walla salmonids are to be restored and protected, this proposal is not fundable. See programmatic comments related to supplementation as an experiment. General comments: No justification is included that addresses expected carrying capacity or other information from EDT or similar analyses. The hatchery can be justified as mitigation for dams on the Columbia, to produce fish for harvest (this still requires a harvest plan that does not impact wild fish), but it does not fit well as a supplementation project or for re-building wild runs, and does not flow from the subbasin plan. The subbasin plan states that WDFW has no established goal for spring chinook in the basin, and it is difficult to assess status from EDT reports: "Managers will need to continue to refine the EDT outputs to clarify the balance between natural production and artificial production that will meet subbasin adult return expectations and needs." Artificial propagation (out-of-system Carson stock) is recommended by the proponent to increase the parental base from which to build returns for natural production and harvest. What evidence is there that this would work? Wild production should be able to rebuild naturally. If not, why not, and why would (domestic brood) hatchery fish do any better? They very likely would not. Artificial propagation is stated as a key element in the Walla Walla fisheries restoration program and required in order to achieve spring Chinook natural production, broodstock, and harvest objectives in the Walla Walla Subbasin. It is not clear that natural production will arise from the artificial production, but there could be hatchery broodstock and harvest products realized by the project. If natural production were to recruit from hatchery spawners, the natural production shall quickly copy the hatchery fish in character (genetic and otherwise), and eventually may eliminate wild fish. Replacement of wild fish by hatchery fish is the likely outcome of this proposed action – a result that is contrary to subbasin goals. There remains a concern for impacts to non-focal or other species (e.g., steelhead), for which there is insufficient consideration in the proposal.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: The sponsor response emphasizes that they believe there was significant information overlooked in the preliminary Walla Walla Hatchery Master Plan proposal review. They also conclude that the ISRP review contradicted itself. In the introductory description of the project in the preliminary review the ISRP stated, “More detailed review and evaluation would be encompassed in a Three-Step process, which the ISRP supports.” Apparently the sponsors took this statement to indicate endorsement of progressing to a Three-Step Review. They comment in their response that this statement is inconsistent with the Not Fundable recommendation in the preliminary review. The ISRP regrets the choice of words. The ISRP intent was to communicate their general support for the Three-Step Review, not that this proposal was sufficient to progress to that point. The ISRP regrets having confused the project sponsor. The response leaves the clear impression that the sponsors thought the ISRP would at least look through the Walla Walla Hatchery Master Plan during this proposal review to find important elements indicating initiating Three-Step Review was justified. In several instances in the response, the sponsors point out that the information requested is in a Master Plan. The ISRP did not have access to the draft Walla Walla Master Plan. Nonetheless, in this review cycle all the information to support a project needed to reside in the proposal or narrative. This misunderstanding is unfortunate. The ISRP remain unconvinced of the rationale for the hatchery as the appropriate rebuilding tool for spring Chinook in the Walla Walla River, based on the material contained in the proposal. From the proposal it is confusing to determine what mix of harvest augmentation and natural production restoration is the real purpose of the hatchery production. From the proposal it is not possible for the ISRP to conclude that the habitat conditions are actually sufficient to support the hatchery production in addition to the fish that are currently returning to the watershed, even though those numbers are only in the tens to hundreds annually. From the response the question of the rationale for hatchery production becomes even more of an issue. Sponsors state: “[T]he demographics of spring Chinook remain ‘upside down’, such that recently reintroduced natural production in the Walla Walla is not likely to sustain itself to any great extent without increased human intervention, and c) there is capacity in the system for the use of artificial production to re-establish and sustain both natural and artificial production in the system.” The observation that recent reintroductions are not likely to sustain themselves argues to delay artificial production, not a rationale to undertake a Three-Step Review to develop a hatchery program that includes a goal of restoring a self-sustaining population. It is not clear to the ISRP what this capacity might be, but it seems mutually exclusive to have natural production sustained by artificial production. In an integrate hatchery program, with both natural and hatchery subcomponents, the natural component needs to be self-sustaining. The ISRP expects that a moderately fecund species like spring Chinook should be able to rebuild from low abundance if habitat conditions are suitably improved. If a future proposal is developed justification is needed that addresses expected carrying capacity or other information from EDT or similar analyses, and anticipated productivity and abundance of the hatchery and natural population components. There remains a concern for impacts to non-focal or other species (e.g., steelhead), for which there was insufficient consideration in the proposal. This topic also needs to be fully addressed.