FY07-09 proposal 198802200

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Umatilla

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs:

Termination date:
Comments: The project is viewed as a long term O&M project required for maintaining the survival advantages achieved by implementation of the fish passage and flow enhancement projects in the basin.

Final deliverables:

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: Three projects are linked to comprise the Umatilla River tributary fish passage effort: Umatilla River Fish Passage Operations (198802200), Umatilla Basin Project Power Repay (198902700), and Umatilla Fish Passage Facilities O&M (198343600). Together these projects have a goal of improving instream conditions for passage of both adult and juvenile salmon in the Umatilla River. The river is dewatered in the lower 30 miles by irrigation diversions, these three projects pump water out of the Columbia River, store it in reservoirs within the Umatilla River watershed, and then permit instream replacement of Umatilla water “bucket-for-bucket”. Umatilla Fish Passage Operations (198802200) provides coordination and some M&E for the overall effort. Umatilla Fish Passage Facilities O&M (198343600) maintains fish screens at diversions, fish ladders, and hatchery acclimation ponds, and Umatilla Basin Project Power Repay (18902700) purchases power to pay for pumping Columbia River water into the Umatilla River watershed. Individually the three projects are not amenable to evaluation of scientific justification, benefits to fish and wildlife, appropriate objectives, and adequacy of the monitoring and evaluation. They are more appropriately considered together. The ISRP requests that project sponsors provide a joint response to the following general issues that apply to the set of Umatilla River tributary fish passage proposals. 1. It would help the ISRP to have more complete description of the Umatilla River tributary fish passage effort as a whole, with information on the individual strategies, hatchery, transportation, habitat improvement (including flow augmentation), monitoring and evaluation (a very important part of this initiative) and whatever else fits into the picture, along with analysis of specific past progress and future plans. 2. The Annual Operation Plan. The ISRP needs more information to understand the Annual Operation Plan. How is it determined what volume of water is to be pumped from the Columbia River, and how is it determined what volume and when it should be released into the Umatilla River? 3. The ISRP understanding is that project #198802200, is responsible for the decisions to request water for fish. “The project then allocates the release of this water using the timing and flow quantity prioritization guidelines outlined in the Annual Operation Plan” (Work element 2, page 8, 198802200). Is this correct? To whom is the request made? Which project does the accounting for the released water? The various methods used are adequately described, with the exception of the methods for determining, requesting, executing and accounting for the flow augmentation (pumping Columbia River water. It must be pumped to somewhere, presumably to one or more reservoirs, from whence it can be apportioned, if it is to be apportioned between irrigation and fish. Presumably, there is a cap to the volume of water available for sharing. What is the cap? 4. For the benefit of monitoring and evaluation, is it possible to obtain a measurement of the success of this water exchange in providing flows in the river for fish. Is it possible to obtain a measurement of any additional water on the success of juvenile downstream and adult upstream migration? 5. The Power Repay proposal (198902700) while it claims to justify the efforts (methods) as providing flows for anadromous fishes in the lower portion of the Umatilla River, gives no information on the amount of water pumped or, more importantly, its measured or observed effects on passage of salmonids. It provides information only on the cost of the electricity, and a general statement that it benefits fish. To provide that sort of information would require drawing the information on fish from all the subbasin projects. 6. Do the irrigation districts have water rights that at times include the full base flow of the Umatilla River? 7. Does this explain why the lower 30-50 mile reach of the river virtually dries up at certain times of year? And does the duration of this situation vary depending upon the base flow available in the particular year? 8. Is the water that is pumped from the Columbia River then shared on a 50:50 ("bucket for bucket") basis between the irrigation districts and the needs of fish as determined by this particular project? 9. If this is so, then is the correct interpretation of the situation that the irrigation districts obtain a supplemental volume of water (beyond base flow) equal to whatever is added for fish? Additional Comments for this proposal: It is not clear how all the pieces of the Umatilla River tributary fish passage effort fit together to make a logical program. More information should be provided in this section to justify the activities. Careful study is required to distinguish between the responsibilities of 198802200 and 198343600. Perhaps it would be appropriate to combine them, as they seem to have been at one time. It appears that administrative factors might have encouraged their separation, once the irrigation district assumed primary responsibility for ensuring mechanical reliability of the facilities, as distinguished from operating criteria set by this project. On the other hand, it is not clear why a large portion of the budget for this project is to fund operation and maintenance of hatchery activities. Why is it included here rather than in the hatchery operation and maintenance proposal? The proposal describes ties with other projects, but it needs a broader, overarching approach, particularly as to why some non-passage elements are included here. The project is ongoing and has a history of activity. Missing is some evaluation of program effectiveness at returning adults to spawning grounds and increasing productivity. The presentation needs maps and a fuller explanation of activities to be able to comprehend how, why, and when which fish are moved around. Data should be presented on success of operations. The project history should report on past data collected for the project/program. There cannot be adequate monitoring and evaluation without a clear specification of objectives and methods. In this case, the proposal focuses upon the mechanical methods for moving fish when there is inadequate water, which is fine. But there is a need to refine the monitoring and evaluation of the flow augmentation strategy. Other projects are said to be responsible for the actual M&E, but this one appears to be responsible for establishing the early phases of the database, e.g., information on numbers of fish transported, decisions to augment flow by pumping. Does this include decisions on releases of pumped water from storage reservoirs? This proposal should clearly identify the individual proposals responsible for M&E of the specific objectives and methods.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Not fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: The response helped to clarify operational procedures and decisions. The figures presented in the response suggested that a substantial reduction in the numbers of fish hauled has resulted in recent years. Still, the relationship with flow is not clear. There remain sections of the river, between Birch Creek and Threemile dam, which continue to dewater - if our interpretation is correct. Are we to assume that no fish mortality occurs in the trap and haul operation? One assumes that volitional migration versus truck and haul is to the fish’s benefit, and that this is occurring at an increased frequency, thus towards fish benefits, but we find no attempt to document the extent to which the assumption holds or does not. There is a very large expenditure on the flow projects in this basin, thus it seems worthy of more in-depth and on-site review and evaluation. In addition, the large expenditure calls for evaluation of biological benefits, as the ISRP has repeatedly requested. It is difficult to suggest a design for the evaluation of biological benefits without a better understanding of the flow and fish passage operations. It is apparent the proponents have made a serious effort to address the comments and questions raised by the ISRP, and we appreciate it. However, the more we learn, the more we question. An overriding question has to do with evaluation of effectiveness (in benefiting fish) of one of the primary measures being undertaken, ostensibly to benefit fish, namely the pumping of water from the Columbia River into the Umatilla Basin to be shared equally, “bucket for bucket” to benefit irrigators and fish. We find no proposal in the Umatilla collection that addresses the evaluation of benefits to fish of this measure. Yet, the results of all the other measures being undertaken in the Umatilla Basin certainly are affected by the amount and timing of water made available by the pumping strategy. Accordingly, we recommend that these proposals be reviewed in the near future as a package, the “Umatilla Initiative.” The ISRP’s recommendation of “Not Fundable (Qualified)” for the set of projects that constitute the Umatilla Initiative is explained under project 198343600, Umatilla Passage O&M.