FY 2007 Solicitation Homepage

Project Proposal Request for FY 2007 - FY 2009 Funding (Revised Summer 2006)

Proposal 200003800: NEOH Walla Walla Hatchery - Three Step Master Planning Process

Download this document in MS Word format
Open this document in PDF format

Table of Contents
Part 1. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative
Section 2: Project Location
Section 3: Project Species
Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Section 5: Relationship to Other Projects
Section 6: Biological Objectives
Section 7: Work Elements
Section 8: Budget
Section 9: Project Future
Section 10: Documents
Part 2. Reviews
Part 1 of 2. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Process Information:
Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized Status Form Generator
July 14, 2006 Finalized Gary James

Proposal Type: Ongoing
Proposal Number: 200003800
Proposal Name: NEOH Walla Walla Hatchery - Three Step Master Planning Process
BPA Project Manager: Jay Marcotte
Agency, Institution or 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
 
Project Proposal Contacts
Contact Organization Address Phone/Email Roles Notes
Form Submitter
Gary James Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Old Mission Highway P.O. Box 638
Pendleton OR 97801
Ph: 541.966.2371
Fax: 541.966.2397
Email: garyjames@ctuir.com
Form Submitter
All Assigned Contacts
Julie Burke Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reserva 73239 Confederated Way P.O. Box 638
Pendleton OR 97801
Ph: 541.966.2372
Fax: 541.966.2397
Email: julieburke@ctuir.com
Administrative Contact
Gary James Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Old Mission Highway P.O. Box 638
Pendleton OR 97801
Ph: 541.966.2371
Fax: 541.966.2397
Email: garyjames@ctuir.com
Project Lead
Brian Zimmerman CTUIR PO Box 638
Pendleton, OR 97801
Ph: 541-276-4109
Fax: [left blank]
Email: brianzimmerman@ctuir.com
Form Submitter

Section 2: Project Location
Sponsor Province: Columbia Plateau ARG Province: No Change
Sponsor Subbasin: Walla Walla ARG Subbasin: No Change
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Waterbody Location Description County/State Subbasin Primary?
455129 1181320 South Fork Walla Walla River South Fork Walla Walla Adult Holding and Spawning Facility Umatilla, Oregon Walla Walla Yes

Section 3: Focal Species
Focal Species:
Primary Secondary Additional Species
Chinook All Populations

Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project
Fiscal 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
Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source)
Funding Source Related ID Related Project 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 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 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 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 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.
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.

Section 6: Biological Objectives
Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project
Biological Objective Full Description Associated Subbasin Plan Strategy Page Nos
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 188

Section 7: Work Elements
Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives
Work Element Name Work Element Title Description Start Date End Date Estimated Budget
01: 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 Metrics
Restore spring chinook to the Walla Walla Subbasin
No Metrics for this Work Element

02: 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 Metrics
Restore spring chinook to the Walla Walla Subbasin
No Metrics for this Work Element

03: 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 Metrics
Restore spring chinook to the Walla Walla Subbasin
No Metrics for this Work Element

04: 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 Metrics
Restore spring chinook to the Walla Walla Subbasin
No Metrics for this Work Element

05: 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 Metrics
Restore spring chinook to the Walla Walla Subbasin
No Metrics for this Work Element

06: 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 Metrics
Restore spring chinook to the Walla Walla Subbasin
No Metrics for this Work Element

07: 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 Metrics
Restore spring chinook to the Walla Walla Subbasin
No Metrics for this Work Element

08: Produce Status Report Status Reporting Complete Pisces Quarterly Reports for BPA 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $3,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Restore spring chinook to the Walla Walla Subbasin
No Metrics for this Work Element


Section 8: Budget

Itemized Estimated Budget
Item Note FY 2007 Cost FY 2008 Cost FY 2009 Cost
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 or Organization Item or Service Provided FY 2007 Est Value ($) FY 2008 Est Value ($) FY 2009 Est Value ($) Cash or in-kind? Status

Section 9: Project Future
Project Future Costs and/or Termination
FY 2010 Est Budget FY 2011 Est Budget Comments
$7,000,000 $ 0 Some of 7.0M construction cost may carryover into FY2011
Future Operations & Maintenance 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 Comments
FY2011 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
Document Type Size Date
Fix-it Loop Documents
Documents Originally Submitted with this Proposal

Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results
Account Type:
Expense
Location:
Province: No Change
Subbasin: No Change
Primary Focal Species
No Change
ARG Comments: [none]


NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 NPCC Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 NPCC Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 NPCC Rec
$ 0
Total NPCC Rec
$ 0
Budget Type:Expense
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Recommendation:Do Not Fund
NPCC Comments:


NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 NPCC Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 NPCC Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 NPCC Rec
$ 0
Total NPCC Rec
$ 0
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
NPCC Comments:


Independent Scientific Review Panel Final Review (August 31, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Not fundable
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.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Preliminary Review (June 2, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Not fundable
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.

Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.