DEVELOPING THE WALLA WALLA HATCHERY Design criteria for maximizing survival

WALLA WALLA RIVER BASIN South Fork Walla Walla Adult Holding & Spawning Facility

 Facility constructed in 1997 by BPA SOUTH FORK WALLA WALLA ADULT HOLDING & SPAWNING FACILITY Future Incubation and rearing location  Designed to accommodate a future full production hatchery  BPA acquired sufficient property to support construction of the required production facilities

EXISTING FACILITIES  Site property (18 acres)  Effluent settling pond  Two residences  Ozone water treatment  Pumps and pipe sizing  Water intake and screening  Adult holding & spawning  Existing water right of cfs (9,497 gallons-per-minute)

PROPOSED SMOLT PRODUCTION - NEW SFWW HATCHERY -  500,000 juvenile spring Chinook.  Localized Production - Incubate, rear, 12 fpp.  Est ( Currently direct release 250 K ) ( Currently via Carson 17 fpp )  2,750 est. hatchery returns (100% of sub-basin H goal) ( Current SAR ~ 0.24 ) ( Current hatchery returns ~650 or 24% of H goal )  Annual harvest goal = 2,000 – 2,500 ( All production to be 100% marked for harvest )

BIOPROGRAM METRICS  No. 1 Objective = Maximize Survival !  Fish densities established at 0.66 lbs./ft 3 for early rearing (indoor) & 0.75 lbs./ft 3 for outdoor rearing.  Density index target of during maximum loadings on release date. Max. DI standard for Chinook – 0.20 (Piper, 1982 ) Max. density standard – 1.26 lbs / ft 3  DI target lower than: The new Chief Joseph Hatchery NEOH Lostine Hatchery – 0.13 Tucannon Hatchery (WDFW) – 0.13

BIOPROGRAM METRICS (cont’d) Production Needs:  Incubator types proposed:  Pros – reliability, accessibility, isolate, hatch  Cons – accessibility, soft shell, disease control, not a consistent track record (i.e. experience with plugged nozzles, compressor overheating, water exchange Vertical Heath Trays  Est. egg-take needs for program release goal = 616,000 (for 81% overall survival) Moist Air Incubators  Pros – water budget, chilling, small footprint, reduced labor  Cons – water budget /chiller demands, large footprint, labor intrusive large footprint, labor intrusive

BIOPROGRAM METRICS (cont’d)  Est. No. fry to marking 150 fpp for program release goal = 526,680 (95% survival from hatch).  Total weight = 3,480 lbs.  Early rearing containers proposed: Canadian double-deep style (35 ct.x 150 ft 3 ea.= 5,250 ft 3 )  Early/indoor rearing volume 0.66 lb/ft 3 or a DI of = 5,272 ft 3 ( 0.3 DI - NEOH )

Total lbs. / release > 41,667 BIOPROGRAM VALUES (cont’d)  41,667 lbs. / 0.75 lb/ft 3 = 55,556 ft 3 final rearing volume needed Final rearing proposed: Concrete raceways (10’ x 90’ x 4’d) 55,556 ft 3 / 3,600 ft 3 = 15.4 – or – 16 total raceways

REARING REQUIREMENTS (cont’d)  Peak facility flows for final rearing = 8,710 gpm ( ~545 gpm / raceway )  Lbs. / gpm = 4.8 ( common metric < 10 lbs. / gpm - per Piper, et. Al. )

DENSITY CRITERIA WHAT & WHY?  Relationship between lower rearing densities and higher survival/adult contributions.  Joe Banks density/survival study (USFWS, )  Spring Chinook.  1,200 ft 3 raceways of 20K – 40K – 60K ChS smolts  DI’s of 0.16 – 0.32 – 18 fpp  Densities of 0.93 – 1.85 – 2.78 lbs./ft 3

RESULTS & DECISIONS  Highest number of adult returns?  20K groups  Lowest number of adult returns?  60K groups  With flows adjusted in each group.....  200 – 400 – 600 gpm  Fish reared on 600 gpm from each population group yielded highest number of adults.... BUT  20 k group on 200 gpm flow yielded more adults than any of the other higher density groups on 600 gpm.

RESULTS & DECISIONS (cont’d)  Priority for low densities to give fish the greatest adult survival advantage, especially when poor post- release conditions are present.  Second priority for low flow index, but based on the Banks study, is secondary to density for survival benefits.  No. of rearing vessels based on these criteria will improve hatchery effectiveness.

RESULTS & DECISIONS (cont’d)  Currently re-evaluating raceways v. circulars and effects on flows/velocities for improved exercise as it relates to increasing survival.  Currently re-evaluating incubation types.

QUESTIONS / DISCUSSION