FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 200205700
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Westland-Ramos Fish Passage and Habitat Restoration Pilot Project |
| Proposal ID | 200205700 |
| Organization | Westland Irrigation District (WID) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Craig Cooper |
| Mailing address | 2353 130th Avenue N.E., Suite 200 Bellevue, Washington 98005 |
| Phone / email | 4256024000 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Mike Wick, Manager WID |
| Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Umatilla |
| Short description | Improve the upstream passsage for anadromous fisheries resources (migration, spawning and rearing), and enhace bedload transport function, by notching two diversion dams within a 1.25-mile river reach of the lower Umatilla River. |
| Target species | Steelhead Trout (Mid-Columbia ESU-Threatened Status), Bull Trout (Mid-Columbia DPS- Threatened Status), Spring Chinook, Fall Chinook, Coho, Lamprey Eel |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.72 | -119.18 | Approximate Umatilla River miles 27.7 to 29.0, approximately 1.5 miles south of Echo, Oregon |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 153 | NMFS | BPA shall, working with agricultural incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, negotiate and fund long-term protection for 100 miles of riparian buffers per year in accordance with criteria BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|---|
| 1998 | Completion and dissemination of report entitled "Westland-Ramos Pilot Habitat Project Consideration and Selection of a Preferred Project." |
| 1999 | Completion and dissemination of report entitled "Westland-Ramos Pilot Habitat Restoration Project Plan." |
| 2000 | Completion and dissemination of report entitled "Westland-Ramos Reach of the Umatilla River; Engineering Feasibility Study and Preliminary Channel Design." |
| 2000 | Successful completion of consultations and solicitations of support from landowners, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Umatilla Basin Watershed Council, and other sub-basin stakeholders (USBR, ODFW, etc.) for the Project. |
| 2000 | Memorandum to the Project identifying local, state, and federal permits requirements; and describing the permitting processes in terms of fees, estimated efforts/schedules, and agency consultations. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 199000501 | Umatilla Basin Natural Production M&E: Evaluate natural production of salmon & steelhead resulting from the Fisheries Restoration Program. Evaluate the implementation of the Umatilla Hatchery Master Plan for adult salmon & steelhead passage, etc. | Inventories & assessments (e.g. Contor et al 1997, Contor et al. 1996, and Contor et al. 1995) support the necessity to improve passage and habitat conditions in the river reaches affected by the Westland/Feed Canal diversion dams. |
| 198710001 | Umatilla Habitat Improvement/CTUIR: Conduct watershed planning & education. Identify problems & develop solutions … Implement & maintain anadromous habitat enhancement for Meacham Cr., etc. | Westland-Ramos project supports upriver habitat treatments since it complements the process of reconnecting fragmented sub-basin habitats, and improves the survival & productivity of upriver stocks using the reach as a migratory & rearing corridor. |
| 198710002 | Umatilla Habitat Improvement/ODFW: Improve habitat access, and the quantity & quality of spawning and rearing habitats for steelhead in the Umatilla Basin Streams … | Westland-Ramos project supports upriver habitat treatments since it complements the process of reconnecting fragmented sub-basin habitats, and improves the survival & productivity of upriver stocks using the reach as a migratory & rearing corridor. |
| 8710400 | Umatilla Passage Improvements- Westland Diversion: Construct new fish ladder, fish screens, and fish bypass & trapping facilities at Westland I.D diversion dam. | The project would provide a dam notching supplement that would complement the existing upstream passage facility by minimizing bedload aggradations at the entrance/exit points. It would preserve trap haul facilities & operations at Westland' Diversion. |
| 8710402 | Improvements at Westland Diversion: Work at Westland diversion dam to improve fish passage. | The project preserves and enhances BPA Project #8710402 investments by relieving chronic bedload issue that impair operations at the fishway entrance/exits and diversion headgates. |
| 8343600 | Umatilla Passage O &M: Operate and maintain passage facilities at five irrigation diversion sites- Three Mile Dam … Westland ladder and canal screens, Feed Canal ladder and screens … | The project would reduce annual costs of BPA Project #8343600 since it will reduce costs relative to removal of gravel/materials aggradations that impair operations of the diversion headgate and fishway entrance/exit at Feed and Westland Diversions. |
| 8802200 | Umatilla River Basin Trap & Haul Program: Provide low-water fish passage in lower Umatilla R. by trapping & hauling fish and hauling to river sections with adequate water. | The project does not negatively impact BPA Project #8802200, but complements passage objectives in the Lower Umatilla in the Westland-Feed Canal reach. |
| 8401000 | Umatilla Basin Salmon & Steelhead Restoration Plan: Develop a comprehensive plan for rehabilitation of anadromous stocks, both wild and hatchery raised, in the Umatilla Basin. | The project would complement Project #8401000 objectives by significantly improving fish passage and restoring both spawning and rearing habitat. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Restore unobstructed fish passage at the Feed Dam and eliminate migration delays by September 2003. | a. Conduct engineering final design and obtain required permits | 2 | $100,800 | Yes |
| Objective 2. Minimize bedload removal activities | a. Conduct engineering final design and obtain required permits | 2 | $48,720 | Yes |
| Objective 1 and 2 | a. Administration | 2 | $23,500 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.Restore unobstructed fish passage at the Feed dam… | 2003 | 2003 | $43,200 |
| 2. Minimize bedload removal activities | 2003 | 2003 | $20,880 |
| 1 and 2 administration | 2003 | 2003 | $23,500 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 |
|---|
| $64,080 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Restore unobstructed fish passage at the Feed Dam and eliminate migration delays by September 2003. | b. Implement dam notch and restoration features | 1 | $0 | Yes |
| Objective 2. Minimize bedload removal activities | b. Implement dam notch and restoration features | 1 | $0 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 2003 | 2003 | $662,000 |
| 2. | 2003 | 2003 | $318,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 |
|---|
| $980,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective 1. Restore unobstructed fish passage at the Feed Dam and eliminate migration delays by September 2003. | Conduct O&M activities at Feed dam and in-channel structures | 3 | $0 | Yes |
| Objective 2. Minimize bedload removal activities | d. Conduct O&M activities at Westland dam and in-channel structures | 3 | $0 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.Restore unobstructed fish passage at the Feed dam… | 2004 | 2006 | $78,000 |
| 2. Minimize bedload removal activities | 2004 | 2006 | $42,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|
| $40,000 | $40,000 | $40,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Restore unobstructed fish passage at the Feed dam | c. Establish biological and physical baseline data | 1 | $30,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| e | $0 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 25% | $15,000 |
| Fringe | 35% of salary | $5,250 |
| Supplies | (Office supplies, telephone, mailing…) | $200 |
| Travel | $800 | |
| Indirect | 15% for administration | $2,250 |
| Subcontractor | $179,520 | |
| $203,020 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $203,020 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $203,020 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Westland Irrigation District and Hermiston Irrigation Districts | Project Planning/Feasibility Study/Stakeholder Coordination (1999-2001) | $130,000 | cash |
| *Westland Irrigation/Hermiston Irrigation Districts | Funding for Final M&E Program Design (2002) | $30,000 | cash |
| *Westland Irrigation/Hermiston Irrigation Districts | Funding of Annual M&E Related Activities (2002-2006) $25K/Year | $100,000 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable - no response required
Jun 15, 2001
Comment:
Fundable (high priority).This is an excellent proposal that addresses removal of barriers that cause excessive delay or serious injury of migrating anadromous fish that can increase vulnerability of stocks. This project intends to overcome a major impediment to passage associated with bedload transport problems at a major diversion in the Umatilla River. The proposal reflects a great deal of preparatory work by the proposer to develop plans for a much needed project and obtain broad acceptance by affected stakeholders in irrigated agriculture as well as fisheries. Affected species are listed by ESU (Part 1). There is a thorough listing (Part 1) and discussion (Part 2) of interrelationship with related projects. Plans for information transfer are thorough and good. Costs are well laid out in Part 1. There is excellent cost sharing, amounting to a significant proportion of the costs (past, proposed, and continuing). The stages of work, both already completed by the proposer or with other project funding and those still to be done, are well laid out (abstract). The excellent section on rationale and significance to regional programs has very complete and useful summary tables. The proposal could benefit, however, by including the available data concerning the length of delay caused by the site, and the likely significance (quantitative) of the delay, based on the other studies. There are good objectives and tasks, with appropriately described methods. There is a clear and good plan for monitoring and evaluation. The reference list is comprehensive. The staff is well described (both those to be funded by the project and other participants funded elsewhere) and seem competent. Throughout the proposal, electronic links are provided to detailed supplementary information (this would be helpful when needed, but was unhandy for reviewers with hard copies). All-in-all, the proposal is a high quality, professional package, augmented by an excellent presentation and photos, that demonstrates well the need for the project, how it would be accomplished and the high likelihood for success.
Comment:
This project addresses NMFS RPA (will be provided during Committee reviews). This project would address current passage problems for all species.Comment:
Fundable (high priority).This is an excellent proposal that addresses removal of barriers that cause excessive delay or serious injury of migrating anadromous fish that can increase vulnerability of stocks. This project intends to overcome a major impediment to passage associated with bedload transport problems at a major diversion in the Umatilla River. The proposal reflects a great deal of preparatory work by the proposer to develop plans for a much needed project and obtain broad acceptance by affected stakeholders in irrigated agriculture as well as fisheries. Affected species are listed by ESU (Part 1). There is a thorough listing (Part 1) and discussion (Part 2) of interrelationship with related projects. Plans for information transfer are thorough and good. Costs are well laid out in Part 1. There is excellent cost sharing, amounting to a significant proportion of the costs (past, proposed, and continuing). The stages of work, both already completed by the proposer or with other project funding and those still to be done, are well laid out (abstract). The excellent section on rationale and significance to regional programs has very complete and useful summary tables. The proposal could benefit, however, by including the available data concerning the length of delay caused by the site, and the likely significance (quantitative) of the delay, based on the other studies. There are good objectives and tasks, with appropriately described methods. There is a clear and good plan for monitoring and evaluation. The reference list is comprehensive. The staff is well described (both those to be funded by the project and other participants funded elsewhere) and seem competent. Throughout the proposal, electronic links are provided to detailed supplementary information (this would be helpful when needed, but was unhandy for reviewers with hard copies). All-in-all, the proposal is a high quality, professional package, augmented by an excellent presentation and photos, that demonstrates well the need for the project, how it would be accomplished and the high likelihood for success.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUEnhance upstream migration of 'late returning summer steelhead', spring chinook, fall chinook, and coho. Timing for these fish is critical; migration delay & repeated attempts to negotiate the structure may promote pre-spawn mortality, impact distances migrated, & influence selection of spawning sites.
Comments
Excellent proposal that addresses removal of barriers that cause excessive delay or serious injury of migrating anadromous salmonids that can increase vulnerability of stocks. Project intends to overcome a major impediment to passage associated with bedload transport problems at a major diversion in the Umatilla River. Proposal reflects a great deal of preparatory work by the proponent to develop plans for a much needed project and obtain broad acceptance by affected stakeholders in irrigated agriculture as well as fisheries. Good cost-sharing & interrelationship with related projects.
Already ESA Req? no
Biop? yes
Comment:
This project could be undertaken with irrigation district funds or with BOR funds instead of ratepayer funds. At a minimum, such work should include significant cost sharing. There is no doubt that the work is needed. It appears that some earlier passage work that BPA funded wasn’t as effective as it should have been. We recognize that, in the past, resource managers did not view passage as holistically as is the case now. Instead, point source problems (i.e., dams/screens) were addressed in isolation. The result is that the stretch of river between Feed Canal and Westland has been a continual problem, with high bed load and a wandering channel. This project proposes to address these issues.Comment:
Comment:
Capital project. Draft proposal of contract to BPA. Shift to 04 for design and construction phase in 05. Check on contracting status. Within year allocation recommendation in 02.Comment:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
capital
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $1,044,080 | $0 | $0 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website