FY07-09 proposal 198902700
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Power Repay Umatilla Basin Project |
| Proposal ID | 198902700 |
| Organization | Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation |
| Short description | Provide reimbursement of power costs to Umatilla Electric Coopeative and Pacific Powr & Light Company for the Umatilla Basin Project pumping plants that provide Columbia River water to irrigators in exchange for Umatilla River water left instream |
| Information transfer | No data is generated through this project. Bureau of Reclamation provides an annual report on Umatilla Basin Project exchange activities to the NWPCC. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
Contacts
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Umatilla
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|
| 45.55 |
119.21 |
|
Phase I pumping plant located in the city of Umatilla |
| 45.55 |
119.9 |
|
Phase II pumping plant located at Sand Station near Hat Rock State Park |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: All Anadromous Fish
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
| 2005 |
Power cost reimbursement for the Umatilla Basin Project has occurred annually. Enhanced fish passage flows in the lower 50 miles of the Umatilla River, from McKay Creek to the mouth. |
| 2004 |
Power cost reimbursement for the Umatilla Basin Project has occurred annually. Enhanced fish passage flows in the lower 50 miles of the Umatilla River, from McKay Creek to the mouth. |
| 2003 |
Power cost reimbursement for the Umatilla Basin Project has occurred annually. Enhanced fish passage flows in the lower 50 miles of the Umatilla River, from McKay Creek to the mouth. |
| 2002 |
Power cost reimbursement for the Umatilla Basin Project has occurred annually. Enhanced fish passage flows in the lower 50 miles of the Umatilla River, from McKay Creek to the mouth. |
| 2001 |
Power cost reimbursement for the Umatilla Basin Project has occurred annually. Enhanced fish passage flows in the lower 50 miles of the Umatilla River, from McKay Creek to the mouth. |
| 2000 |
Power cost reimbursement for the Umatilla Basin Project has occurred annually. Enhanced fish passage flows in the lower 50 miles of the Umatilla River, from McKay Creek to the mouth. |
| 1999 |
Power cost reimbursement for the Umatilla Basin Project has occurred annually. Enhanced fish passage flows in the lower 50 miles of the Umatilla River, from McKay Creek to the mouth. |
| 1998 |
Power cost reimbursement for the Umatilla Basin Project has occurred annually. Enhanced fish passage flows in the lower 50 miles of the Umatilla River, from McKay Creek to the mouth. |
| 1997 |
Power cost reimbursement for the Umatilla Basin Project has occurred annually. Enhanced fish passage flows in the lower 50 miles of the Umatilla River, from McKay Creek to the mouth. |
| 1996 |
Power cost reimbursement for the Umatilla Basin Project has occurred annually. Enhanced fish passage flows in the lower 50 miles of the Umatilla River, from McKay Creek to the mouth. |
| 1995 |
Power cost reimbursement for the Umatilla Basin Project has occurred annually. Enhanced fish passage flows in the lower 50 miles of the Umatilla River, from McKay Creek to the mouth. |
| 1994 |
Power cost reimbursement for the Umatilla Basin Project has occurred annually. Enhanced fish passage flows in the lower 50 miles of the Umatilla River, from McKay Creek to the mouth. |
| 1993 |
Power cost reimbursement for the Umatilla Basin Project has occurred annually. Enhanced fish passage flows in the lower 50 miles of the Umatilla River, from McKay Creek to the mouth. |
| 1992 |
Power cost reimbursement for interim pumping measures prior to initiation of the Umatilla Basin Project occurred annually. Fish passage flows were improved in the lower Umatilla River below Threemile Dam. |
| 1991 |
Power cost reimbursement for interim pumping measures prior to initiation of the Umatilla Basin Project occurred annually. Fish passage flows were improved in the lower Umatilla River below Threemile Dam. |
| 1990 |
Power cost reimbursement for interim pumping measures prior to initiation of the Umatilla Basin Project occurred annually. Fish passage flows were improved in the lower Umatilla River below Threemile Dam. |
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|
| BPA |
198802200 |
Umatilla Fish Passage Ops |
198802200 - Increase adult and juvenile migrant survival in the Umatilla Basin. The project provides survival benefits for both hatchery and natural production by operating and maintaining ladders, bypasses, screen sites, trap facilities, and hauling equipment and coordination these operations with flow enhancement measures and diversion activities. |
| BPA |
198343600 |
Umatilla Passage O&M |
198343600 operate and maintain passage facilities to maximize passage benefits associated with the Umatilla Basin Project. |
| BPA |
198902401 |
Eval Um Juvenile Sal Out Migra |
198902401- Determines and strengthens the overall effectiveness of the fisheries restoration effort by evaluating the outmigration success of hatchery and natural juvenile salmonids and natural Pacific lamprey in the lower Umatilla River. |
| BPA |
199000500 |
Umatilla Hatchery - M&E |
199000500 - Montior and evaluate juvenile rearing, marking, tagging, survival, stock life history, fish health, mass marking, straying, sport fishing and catch contribution for salmon and steelhead reared at the Umatilla Hatchery. |
| BPA |
199000501 |
Umatilla Basin Nat Prod M&E |
199000501 - Monitors the restoration of naturally producing salmon and steelhead in the basin. The project objectives are to measure, estimate and report salmonid spawning success, rearing densities and abundance, habitat quality and quantity, production capacity of basin, life history characteristics, and migration timing and success. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|
| Increase survival of juvenile and adult fish |
The method to accomplish this is by pumping Columbia River water in exchange for the Umatilla River water left instream. This is accomplished by providing power for operation of the Umatilla Basin Project Columbia River pumping plants. |
Umatilla |
Aquatic Objectives & Strategies #2 - Maintain and enhance natural production, productivity, abundance, life history characteristics, and genetic diversity of fish and mussels throughout the Umatilla Basin using habitat protection and improvement. |
| Increase survival of juvenile and adult fish |
The method to accomplish this is by pumping Columbia River water in exchange for the Umatilla River water left instream. This is accomplished by providing power for operation of the Umatilla Basin Project Columbia River pumping plants. |
Umatilla |
Aquatic Objectives & strategies #10 - Maintain and enhance flow for homing and passage of steelhead and chinook through the lower Umatilla River using flow restoration and enhancement. |
| Increase survival of juvenile and adult fish |
The method to accomplish this is by pumping Columbia River water in exchange for the Umatilla River water left instream. This is accomplished by providing power for operation of the Umatilla Basin Project Columbia River pumping plants. |
Umatilla |
Aquatic Objectives & Strategies #11 - Maintain and enhance steelhead and chinook rearing and spawning in the mainstem Umatilla River with flow enhancement and protection. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|
| Acquire Water Instream |
Provide Columbia River water to irrigators in exchange for Umatilla River water left instream - EXISTING PROGRAM |
Provide power to Phase I and Phase II power plants to pump Columbia River water for irrigation use in exchange for Umatilla River water left instream to aid in adult and juvenile salmonid migration. |
10/1/2006 |
9/30/2007 |
$1,500,000 |
Biological objectives
|
Metrics
|
| Acquire Water Instream |
Provide Columbia River water to irrigators in exchange for Umatilla River water left instream - EXISTING PROGRAM |
Provide power to Phase I and Phase II power plants to pump Columbia River water for irrigation use in exchange for Umatilla River water left instream to aid in adult and juvenile salmonid migration. |
10/1/2007 |
9/30/2008 |
$1,500,000 |
Biological objectives
|
Metrics
|
| Acquire Water Instream |
Provide Columbia River water to irrigators in exchange for Umatilla River water left instream - EXISTING PROGRAM |
Provide power to Phase I and Phase II power plants to pump Columbia River water for irrigation use in exchange for Umatilla River water left instream to aid in adult and juvenile salmonid migration. |
10/1/2008 |
9/30/2009 |
$1,500,000 |
Biological objectives
|
Metrics
|
| Acquire Water Instream |
Provide Columbia River water to irrigators in exchange for Umatilla River water left instream- PROPOSED EXPANSION |
Provide power to Phase I power plant to pump Columbia River water for irrigation use in exchange for Umatilla River water left instream to aid in Pacific lamprey adult migration. |
7/1/2007 |
8/15/2007 |
$60,000 |
Biological objectives
|
Metrics
|
| Acquire Water Instream |
Provide Columbia River water to irrigators in exchange for Umatilla River water left instream- PROPOSED EXPANSION |
Provide power to Phase I power plant to pump Columbia River water for irrigation use in exchange for Umatilla River water left instream to aid in Pacific lamprey adult migration. |
7/1/2008 |
8/15/2008 |
$60,000 |
Biological objectives
|
Metrics
|
| Acquire Water Instream |
Provide Columbia River water to irrigators in exchange to Umatilla River water left instream- PROPOSED EXPANSION |
Provide power to Phase I power plant to pump Columbia River water for irrigation use in exchange for Umatilla River water left instream to aid in Pacific lamprey adult migration. |
7/1/2009 |
8/15/2009 |
$60,000 |
Biological objectives
|
Metrics
|
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|
| Other |
This cost is "best" estimate. These are non-discretionary cost that BPA must pay. |
$1,560,000 |
$1,560,000 |
$1,560,000 |
| Totals |
$1,560,000 |
$1,560,000 |
$1,560,000 |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $4,680,000 |
| Total work element budget: | $4,680,000 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | 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: $1,560,000
FY 2011 estimated budget: $1,560,000
|
Comments: Cost will fluctuate depending on the water year and on how much electricity cost are. |
Future O&M costs: This is a non-discretionary requirement set by Congress that BPA be required to provide the power to operate the Phase I/II fish/flow exchanges.
Termination date: Unknown/None
Comments: This is a non-discretionary requirement set by Congress that BPA be required to provide the power to operate the Phase I/II fish/flow exchanges.
Final deliverables: None
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget |
FY08 budget |
FY09 budget |
Total budget |
Type |
Category |
Recommendation |
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] |
| $1,000,000 |
$1,000,000 |
$1,000,000 |
$3,000,000 |
Expense |
ProvinceExpense |
Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] |
| $1,000,000 |
$1,000,000 |
$1,000,000 |
$0 |
|
ProvinceExpense |
|
Comments: See decision memo comment. Required by 1988 Umatilla Basin Project Act
|
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC comments: A response is requested. See the comments under proposal 198802200 - Umatilla Fish Passage Operations for the three proposals involved with the Umatilla River tributary fish passage effort. For this proposal also see the comments below.
Comments specific to this proposal:
The objective states that the pumping of water from the Columbia River provides water to irrigators in exchange for Umatilla water left instream for fish. The first question that occurred to reviewers was "How much water is left in the river for fish?" The general answer appears on page 2 of the Narrative, where it is said that, "...for every portion of flow left instream that same amount is pumped to the irrigation districts." And later, on page 5, the narrative states, "The amount of water exchanged through the project, and the associated costs, vary from year to year depending on water availability in the Umatilla Basin. Both the natural flow and reservoir storage exchanges are directly related to annual flow conditions." While these statements clarify the criteria used for assignment of benefits of pumping, they raise more questions about how decisions are made to commence pumping, who makes those decisions on what basis, and who benefits from them. It is clear that the irrigators are made whole by the process. It remains unclear whether under conditions of low natural flow in the Umatilla, the irrigation districts make use of the pumping provision to supply holders of all water rights including junior water rights, in which case, the ultimate benefit to fish could be zero.
Question: Is there any adjustment in irrigation removals during years of low base flow in the Umatilla?
It appears, from the Narrative that, in spite of this pumping project, the lower 30-50 mile segment of the Umatilla River continues to run dry at times. We read that both adult and juvenile salmon must at certain times be captured and transported by truck to upper reaches of the river. The proposal to extend the duration of pumping to a longer portion of the year, and the Phase III proposal to pump additional water from the Columbia River is intended to address this problem. No doubt, specific data on volumes of water and expected benefits to fish will be used to justify a request to fund Phase III. This same information would assist the ISRP in its review of the existing project.
While the Narrative asserts that water made available by the project "has led to a reduction of over 90% in the number of adults and juveniles trapped and hauled on an annual basis", and we assume the meaning is that it has reduced the necessity to transport those fish, rather than that fewer fish are available now than previously, our curiosity is aroused. What numbers (or percentage) of fish are able to transit the lower river as a result of water made available by the project, compared to numbers (or percentages) without that water?
Question: Can the proponents provide a graph or table showing the data used to arrive at this conclusion?
The proposal states that, "It is assumed that these efforts provide more adequate passage conditions and increase survival for both migrating juveniles and adults" (paragraph 2, page 2 of the Narrative). While we do not consider that this project needs to conduct its own M&E, other than to account for the volumes of water pumped and the schedule of pumping, it ought to refer to M&E projects underway in the Umatilla River that can evaluate the effects of the flow augmentation strategy.
Would fish be better served by using the money spent for electricity to purchase water rights in the Umatilla Basin? An annual expenditure of the same $1.5 million should make possible a gradual accumulation of sufficient water to be able to measure the volume left in the river for fish.
In order to evaluate potential benefits to fish, reviewers need more information on the effects of water pumped on conditions in the 30-50 mile reach of river that is said to have flows at times low enough to restrict fish passage. Answers to the set of questions provided above should make this possible.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable (Qualified)
NPCC comments: Please see the ISRP comments on Proposal #198343600, in which we call for a review of the Umatilla Initiative from a larger perspective than can be gained from review of individual proposals. This project and others in the Umatilla Basin like it are individual parts of the "Umatilla Initiative." As such, none of them is a stand-alone proposal that is susceptible to scientific peer review. This proposal, for example, includes no information on the amount of water pumped from the Columbia River or on possible effects on fish. The response refers the ISRP to other proposals, such as #198802200, under which monitoring is said to take place. Our examination of that proposal and its response to ISRP comments and questions led us to conclude that information being gathered is not adequate to evaluate the effectiveness of the pumping measure in terms of providing benefits to fish. Thus the basis for scientific review, according to the standards specified for the ISRP by Congress is inadequate.
We conclude that there is a need for review of the Umatilla Initiative from a larger perspective than can be provided by review of individual project proposals, such as we have in hand. This suggests that proponents might benefit by reorganizing their efforts under a single head. That would provide a unified perspective, leading to clarification of the fact that the success of all of the individual efforts are affected by the pumping of water from the Columbia River. Monitoring and evaluation should then focus upon documenting flow manipulations and measuring the effects on fish passage and survival.