FY07-09 proposal 200203600

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Walla Walla

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: none
Comments:

Final deliverables:

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: This project is part of a major thrust by governmental and non-governmental entities to restore habitat and fish in the Walla Walla basin. The project addresses the very important problem of restoring flows to the streams in this basin. To date, the project appears to have been highly successful in enlisting private landowners in water conservation efforts. The approach used in this project should be widely adopted in the Columbia Basin. The sponsors need to discuss whether an effectiveness monitoring plan is in place that will evaluate quantitatively improvements in habitat attributes and fish use in the project reach following restoration actions. Such a plan would demonstrate the value of the fine effort to conserve water undertaken so far by the sponsors. Technical and scientific background: The problem is well defined and technically justified. The project would ensure increased flow through a normally dewatered reach preventing stranding and improving migratory and juvenile rearing habitat and replenishing subsurface water storage. The technical analysis has led to innovative approaches that have proven to be effective in restoring flows to the Walla Walla River. This should serve as a model for action throughout the Basin. The sponsors need to provide information on run sizes in the river in which the project is located. They also need to explain why the EDT analysis did not rank the targeted springbrooks as high priority. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: This project would be a part of an apparently successful restoration program for the Walla Walla basin with good cooperation from landowners. The project area is identified as a priority in the Walla Walla Subbasin Plan and the proposal addresses priority strategies. The project could benefit anadromous as well as resident ESA listed species. It also addresses objectives in the Fish and Wildlife Program. Relationships to other projects: The project is related to several BPA funded project as well as to numerous other state, federal, and privately funded projects. A major strength of the proposal is the collaboration with private landowners who have worked closely with the sponsors to provide increased flow to benefit fish. Project history: The project history documents the success of the approach used by this project but provides no data documenting improved instream flows relative to pre-project conditions. Objectives: The project has one objective, which is to increase summer flows by 10-15%. Does this flow increase pertain to the three-mile reach north of Milton-Freewater? Is the percent increase over and above the 25 cfs already provided? Quantitatively (as well as possible), how much habitat improvement can be expected from such a small increase in flow? Should there be an objective for aquifer recharge? This proposal should be linked to the Columbia Basin Water Transaction Program (proposal 200201301) and address the criteria for water transactions under that program that are relevant to the proposed actions. Tasks (work elements) and methods: Strategies for accomplishing the objectives rather than specific methods are given. This is understandable given the nature of the project. The sponsors should explain the methods by which aquifer recharge will be accomplished. Monitoring and evaluation: The major drawback of this proposal is the lack of a consolidated monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of the water conservation strategies in improving flows, aquifer recharge and springbrook flows, fish habitat characteristics (e.g. pool depth, stream temperature) and fish use. Some monitoring activities are discussed at various points in the proposal but the total program (design, methods, metrics, etc.) is not presented. Facilities, equipment, and personnel: Facilities are adequate, and personnel are well qualified. Have the sponsors been receiving advice from a fisheries biologist? Information transfer is not discussed. Benefits to focal species: The benefits of increasing instream flow could be significant for a number of focal species, but the sponsors provide no estimate of how flow improvements will affect habitat attributes (other than flow and temperature) and fish use. Effectiveness monitoring would help to address these questions. Benefits to non-focal species: The project could benefit non-focal species by improving habitat. The sponsors have already demonstrated an increase in macroinvertebrates, an important food resource for juvenile salmon.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable

NPCC comments: The sponsors adequately addressed the ISRP’s comments. The details provided by the sponsors are helpful in evaluating this proposal and are much appreciated. The project, however, requires more data to show that the expanded habitat is producing fishery benefits.