CCR30221 UPDATE - added work and/or  funds under WEs B and D, for providing assistance in responding to ISRP/NPCC concerns received from review of new HMP as well as assisting BPA in Council presentations (WE B), and for collecting 6 months of water quality data, as well as providing enhanced responses regarding proposed project impacts to the BPA EIS process (WE D).  Performance period extended through Jamuary 2014 to accommodate WQ data collection.


CCR29545 UPDATE: This CCR adds funds to reflect an increased effort and scope to complete the HMP deliverable.  During initial work, it became apparent that not all needed data and information was readily available. We had to obtain much of it from CTUIR staff. This took several formal conference calls and reviews and a number of informal phone call/ work sessions to obtain needed data and information, conduct reviews and obtain CTUIR staff support for the approach and need for the revisions described.

Significant time was spent working through issues with CTUIR staff. This coordination, technical discussion and project management effort exceeded what was initially estimated.

Effort spent to develop an analytical tool that clearly presented decision rules for program Phase 1 -3 and explanations of this approach to staff exceeded initial estimates of effort.

After review of the HMP and other existing data and information it was determined that an addendum to the existing HMP would likely not fully meet requirements. To accurately and concisely reflect the revised program and re-write other sections of the HMP (that do not meet Step requirements) it would take revision of the full plan.

During the February 21, 2013 meeting with BPA and NPCC it was confirmed that a new HMP would be required to meet NPCC and ISRP expectations.  A full new HMP is a significant change to the overall scope initially described. An annotated outline of what will be included in the new HMP is included in the attachments.

Schedule for completion and for Step 1 Approval has been moved back to the July NPCC meeting to accommodate the extra work and to allow adequate time for ISRP review.  An amended schedule is also attached under Project 2000-038-00.


Original Contract Background: This contract provides for professional consultation necessary to finalize the WW Hatchery master planning process (HMP).  Based on the project history below, this project is (and has been) stuck at the Step 1 Approval point.  BPA wishes to resolve issues related to the HMP so the project can move forward into final design and construction, thereby satisfying BPA’s commitments under the BPA-CTUIR Accord.  BPA’s intent is to procure the services of experienced, credible, third party professionals with expertise in both fish culture and the NPCC step process to assist with finding a resolution that meets all parties’ interests while allowing the project to proceed.

Project History - CTUIR submitted a hatchery master plan to NPCC in August 2008.  On November 13, 2008 the Council received the ISRP review (ISRP document 2008 -14).  The ISRP found that the master plan did not meet scientific review criteria and commented that their previous 2007-2009 review still applied.  On March 10th, 2010, CTUIR provided comment responses to ISRP.  The comment response package contained updated M&E results, updated information on passage and habitat improvements completed since 2008, a more thorough discussion of the adaptive management plan, and more detail on the assumptions behind and use of Appendix X – Fish Disposition model.

On May 28, 2010 the ISRP provided their review of the Walla Walla Spring Chinook Master Plan, March 2010 Response (ISRP document 2010-17).  The ISRP provided a "does not meet scientific review criteria" finding as an overall recommendation to the Council.  The ISRP found that the issues raised in the past were still not addressed in a way that would allow the ISRP to find the master plan complete.  In addition, the ISRP felt that "the considerable explanatory prose and tribal perspective in the most recent master plan did not adequately address the underlying scientific concerns."  

The ISRP stated that the responses to the following four topics, as identified in their last review (i.e., ISRP document 2008 -14), were  ultimately incomplete in terms of the content needed to permit the ISRP to find the master plan meets scientific review criteria.

1 Evaluate the natural production of smolts and adults from the recent releases, and if information is lacking to conduct the evaluation, develop a proof-of-concept release program to justify the need for potential raceway construction;

2 Provide evidence that the habitat in the subbasin is adequate to support a reintroduced population and link with the habitat restoration description;

3 Provide a decision framework; and

4 Provide an HGMP for the program (an HGMP has since been completed and will be presented as part of the re-submittal.  Contractor involvement with the HGMP is limited to performing a consistency check between the HMP and the HGMP - see WE D, MS 5)

NPCC has also expressed concerns that the last 2 or 3 iterations of the proposal response process have not shown adequate progress. Council staff have expressed a desire to see a HMP that is substantially improved.

Contract Purpose - The purpose of this contract is to produce a revised WW Spring Chinook Hatchery Master Plan that addresses outstanding NPCC and ISRP concerns in a clear and concise manner, for submittal to the NPCC. Key steps involved in producing a revised hatchery will be:

1) Evaluate Outstanding ISRP Issues – as determined by reviewing the public record associated with this project.  Documents listed above are uploaded to Pisces at the project level;.  This evaluation step will include a professional assessment of the validity of outstanding concerns.  In other words, using contractors' expertise and professional judgment, address the extent to which ISRP and NPCC concerns have been satisfied, what concerns remain, and recommend 1) whether any remaining issues cannot reasonably be addressed and 2) how to proceed in the event this recommendation is made.  The evaluation of outstanding issues should also assess the level of effort required to accomplish a HMP re-write.

2) Produce a Revised HMP for BPA/CTUIR review and eventual re-submittal to NPCC that addresses outstanding concerns to the extent practicable.  The revisions envisioned will involve re-writing the existing HMP for clarity, organization, completeness and comprehensibility. Revising the HMP will involve updating the existing document to reflect current M&E and habitat restoration information (based updated data, text and graphics that will be provided by CTUIR), reorganizing it for clarity, and incorporating language that responds to ISRP concerns as expressed in their recent review comment documents.  If required, attend any BPA-led face-to-face meetings with NPCC to provide technical support. Final presentation to NPCC of the revised HMP will be made by CTUIR.

Work is expected to start on January 2, 2013.  As soon as possible thereafter, BPA and contractor staff will discuss project goals, objectives, schedule, deliverables and strategy by teleconference.  Work will proceed when BPA signals comfort with the approach. At the end of the evaluation phase, BPA and contractor staff will meet by teleconference again to discuss contractor's proposed approach to the HMP revision, include approach, level of effort, schedule, recommendations for presentation strategy to NPCC, etc.

Currently, the contract objective is to have the revised HMP complete in time to present to NPCC for a recommendation at their April 9-10 meeting.