FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 200203600

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

Fundable if adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns. This seems to be a worthwhile project to increase the water efficiency of irrigation and preserve the saved water for in-stream uses under Oregon Water Law. This project is part of the effort to restore flows sufficient for fish passage in the Walla Walla River. It focuses on purchase or lease of water rights and on improvements in farm efficiency in the use of water. An inefficient canal will be converted to pipelines. The Water Basin District has a means of enforcing the allocations of water for fish flows. That would have a real benefit for fish. However, the proposal is short on what will actually be done, even though the overall justification and end result are clear. The sponsors need to clarify how the monitoring proposed here relates to the monitoring proposed in Project 25066. Proposers should read the monitoring section in the general comments part of this ISRP report and identify in the response the type of monitoring planned (it appears that type 1 effectiveness monitoring may be necessary by this project in addition to a broader-scale monitoring by other projects).

The information in Part 1 is good. Costs and objectives are ok. There is excellent cost share, amounting to over 50% when in-kind contributions are included. The background section of the narrative could explain better why the focus segment of the river goes dry (it may be obvious to one familiar with the area, but not to an outside reviewer; for instance, if the canal is leaky, why doesn't the water percolate to the river?). Proposers please provide an explanation in the response. The proposal does a good job of relating the work to regional plans, quoting from the 1994 and 2000 FWPs and the Subbasin Summary (but not the BiOp), and refers to the BOR Action Plan and a Corps reconnaissance report. Many relevant projects in the vicinity are cited including those from the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board and Oregon Water Trust's Water Acquisition Program, as well as those funded by BPA. There are good objectives. The narrative could explain more about what will actually be done (or options) toward improving irrigation systems as well as more details of the pipeline that would replace the old canal (the presentation helped here, but proposers should amplify the text in their response). Both types of work seem laudable, but it would be good to spell out more than the materials list in the appendix. There were no references cited, although there must be useful reports on irrigation water efficiency that could be mentioned as prototypes for justifying what would be done here (please provide in response). Bios of staff are painfully brief, and give little background for a reviewer to judge competence (please provide further information, especially related to past experience with irrigation systems). Although matching funds and in-kind contributions are excellent, the proposal leaves unclear how the proposal's funds would be used in contrast to efforts or funds from others. Both more information on what will actually be done for water efficiency (irrigation systems) and clarification of roles of different funding sources should be provided in a response. Monitoring needs clarification, also, as noted above.

Comment:

Comment:

This seems to be a worthwhile project to increase the water efficiency of irrigation and preserve the saved water for in-stream uses under Oregon Water Law. This project is part of the effort to restore flows sufficient for fish passage in the Walla Walla River. It focuses on purchase or lease of water rights and on improvements in farm efficiency in the use of water. An inefficient canal will be converted to pipelines. The Water Basin District has a means of enforcing the allocations of water for fish flows. That would have a real benefit for fish. However, the initial proposal was short on what would actually be done, even though the overall justification and end result are clear, and the sponsors needed to clarify monitoring. Each of these concerns was alleviated with the response.

The information in Part 1 is good. Costs and objectives are ok. There is excellent cost share, amounting to over 50% when in-kind contributions are included. The reviewers felt that the proposal could have better explained why the section of the river goes dry. The proposal does a good job of relating the work to regional plans, quoting from the 1994 and 2000 FWPs and the Subbasin Summary (but not the BiOp), and refers to the BOR Action Plan and a Corps reconnaissance report. Many relevant projects in the vicinity are cited including those from the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board and Oregon Water Trust's Water Acquisition Program, as well as those funded by BPA. There are good objectives. The reviewers felt the narrative could explain more about what will actually be done (or options) toward improving irrigation systems as well as more details of the pipeline that would replace the old canal (the presentation helped here). There were no references cited, although there must be useful reports on irrigation water efficiency that could be mentioned as prototypes for justifying what would be done. Bios of staff were painfully brief, and gave little background for a reviewer to judge competence. Although matching funds and in-kind contributions are excellent, the proposal left unclear how the proposal's funds would be used in contrast to efforts or funds from others. Monitoring needed clarification.

The proposers responded to all of the ISRP concerns. They described how they will upgrade irrigation-water delivery systems (convert ditch irrigation to spray, and replace an open, unlined ditch with piping). The monitoring elements of this proposal and Number 25066 were clarified. Their monitoring will be Type 1. References were cited explaining why this segment of the river goes dry (infiltration plus irrigation use). The response referred generally to the BiOp objectives. Appropriate references were provided for water efficiency improvements. More complete biographies were provided, as was the breakdown of cost-share contributions.

This should be a valuable project.

Comment:

Comments
Proposal does not identify how much water will be saved (proposes a small range). It will put some water into a problem reach of the Walla Walla River.

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? yes

Comment:

Comment:

Walla Walla River Flow Restoration (25082)

This project is part of the effort to restore flows in the Walla Walla by lease or purchase of water rights and farm water use efficiencies. There is a cost share exceeding 50% when in-kind contributions are considered. It is asserted that 5 to 7 cfs would be conserved in a critical flow-impaired area.

Staff Recommendation: This project will restore flow to a critical reach of the Walla Walla and may represent an opportunity lost if deferred until after subbasin planning. NMFS has commented that this project could correspond only to RPA 500. Bonneville expressed concerns that the project contained no guarantees that conserved water allocated to instream use in Oregon would be protected through Washington. The project is part of a bi-state effort to implement flow restoration in the Walla Walla and is a high priority for the State of Oregon. Staff recommends funding the project, but also believes that Bonneville should seek assurances through the contracting process that all protected flows remain protected within Washington, possibly through the inclusion of the Washington Water Trust or Department of Ecology in the project.

Budget effect on base program (Project 25082):

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website