FY 2001 Innovative proposal 200101500
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
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 22010 Narrative | Narrative |
| 200101500 Powerpoint Presentation: 2002 Update (Proposal 22010) | Powerpoint Presentation |
| Columbia Plateau: Umatilla Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Columbia Plateau: Umatilla Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Letter from R. Deutz (Umatilla Basin Watershed Council) to T. Iverson (CBFWA) RE: Letter of support for project 22010, Echo Meadow | Correspondence |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Echo Meadow Project - Winter Artificial Recharge to Cool Rivers |
| Proposal ID | 200101500 |
| Organization | IRZ Consulting (IRZ) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Fred Ziari |
| Mailing address | 505 East Main Hermiston, OR 97838 |
| Phone / email | 5415670252 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Fred Ziari |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Umatilla |
| Short description | Document the linkages between winter artrificial recharge of groundwater to the return flows and river temperature cooling in a 13000 acre study area. Collect & analyze data that shows this method may be the sureset way to reduce river water temperature |
| Target species | Coho, Spring & Fall Chinook and Steelhead |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.7563 | -119.2595 | Echo Meadow |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Subcontractor | # of tags: Note: There was an error in this table and we could not add rows for our itemized budget…... | $660,714 |
| Other | Please see the attached itemized budget labled Attacment A, B, C | $0 |
| $660,714 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $660,714 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $660,714 |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| National Fish & Wildlife Foundation | Challeange Funds for the Project | $50,000 | cash |
| US Bureau of Reclamation | Fund for the Project | $21,000 | cash |
| Oregon Water Coalition | Office and Coordination | $15,000 | in-kind |
| Westland Irrigation District | Water Delivery Cost Share | $25,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
This is an interesting proposal to use cyclic storage to supplement summer streamflows with cooler water stored in aquifers. It is innovative in the sense that the approach, while not new or novel for water management purposes, has apparently not previously been used in the basin for habitat improvement. The proposal has three major shortcomings. First, the cost exceeds the limits specified in the RFP, which makes the proposal non-responsive. Second, no attention is given to water rights considerations. What reason is there that, if the project were implemented and the claimed benefits (in terms of water temperature and increased low flows) were realized, that the water would not simply be diverted for agricultural use? Unless this hurdle was overcome first, there would be no point in proceeding. Third, the proposal would proceed directly to implementation, without prior feasibility studies (which might have been more appropriate to this solicitation). For these reasons, this project should be given low priority for funding.Comment:
This is not a feasibility study. Exceeds the $400,000 limit. Outcome from project 22050 may help direct this type of effort. Where will the benefits from this activity accrue? Will additional instream flow be reserved for fish?Comment:
This is not a feasibility study. Exceeds the $400,000 limit. Outcome from project 22050 may help direct this type of effort. Where will the benefits from this activity accrue? Will additional instream flow be reserved for fish?Comment:
Sponsor broke down lumped budget into annual costs. Fund for one year only. After that, sponsor should secure funds through provincial review cycle.