FY07-09 proposal 199601100
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Walla Walla Juvenile and Adult Passage Improvements |
| Proposal ID | 199601100 |
| Organization | Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation |
| Short description | Provide safe passage for migrating juvenile and adult salmonids in the Walla Walla Subbasin by constructing and maintaining passage facilities at irrigation diversion dams and canals and other passage barriers. |
| Information transfer | This is primarily a construction and operation and maintenance project. No data is generated by the project although technical evaluation reports on new facilities are supplied to BPA. Information related to passage improvements is related through the Walla Walla Fish Passage Operations reports. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Brian Zimmerman | CTUIR | brianzimmerman@ctuir.com |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Julie Burke | Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reserva | julieburke@ctuir.com |
| Gary James | Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation | garyjames@ctuir.com |
| Brian Zimmerman | CTUIR | brianzimmerman@ctuir.com |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Walla Walla
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cost share construction projects may occur throughout the Walla Walla Subbasin in both Oregon and Washington | |||
| 460505 | 1183930 | Touchet River | Hofer Dam |
| 460253 | 1183325 | Walla Walla River | Old Lowden Ditch |
| 460240 | 1183052 | Walla Walla River | Bergevin-Williams Ditch |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Chinook All Populationsprimary: Steelhead Middle Columbia River ESU
secondary: Pacific Lamprey
secondary: Bull Trout
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|---|
| 2005 | Provided cost share funding for design of Gose Street barrier passage improvement on Mill Creek and for Nursery Bridge Dam ladder improvement |
| 2004 | Consolidated Milton Ditch into Little Walla Walla River diversion and screening system |
| 2002 | Constructed Garden City/Lowden 2 screen and ditch consolidation on the Walla Walla River |
| 2001 | 1) Cost shared construction of Nursery Bridge Dam fish ladder on the Walla Walla River and 2) new intake screens for City of Walla Walla water supply on Mill Creek 3) Began annual funding for O&M of BPA funded passage facilities in Walla Walla Basin |
| 2000 | 1) Constructed Little Walla Walla River fish screens, juvenile trap, and fishway 2) Cost shared construction of Smith-Nelson fish screen on the Walla Walla River 3) Completed feasibility study on additional passage needs in the Walla Walla Subbasin |
| 1999 | 1) Constructed Burlingame Canal juvenile fish screens and bypass on the Walla Walla River 2) Developed preliminary designs for Hofer Dam screens and fishway on the Touchet River |
| 1998 | 1) Removed Maiden Dam on the lower Touchet River 2)Constructed Burlingame Dam fish ladder on the Walla Walla River. |
| 1997 | Removed Marie Dorian Dam on the upper mainstem Walla Walla River |
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 199604601 | Walla Walla River Basin Fish H | Project provides improved passage for adults and juveniles to and from natural production areas. |
| BPA | 200003800 | Walla Walla River Hatchery | After completion of hatchery, proposed project will provide improved passage for adults and juveniles produced from the facility. |
| BPA | 200003300 | Walla Walla River Fish Passage | Project 200003300 identifies passage improvements to be completed under the proposed project. Project 200003300 also provides technical input on facility designs and operational criteria and monitors operation of facilities after completion. |
| BPA | 200003900 | Walla Walla River Basin Monito | Project provides improved passage for natural adults and juveniles to and from natural production areas. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Provide safe passage | Provide safe passage at Old Lowden and Bergevin-Williams diversions by constructing new fish screens. Also provide cost share funding to improve passage at other diversion structures and passage barriers for migrating juvenile and adult salmonids in the Walla Walla Subbasin. | Walla Walla | Section 7.3.1 - Imminent Threats and Passage Barriers; Obstructions; Fish Diversions/Screens |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Install Fish Screen | Construct Juvenile Fish Screen Facilities | Provide cost share for construction of juvenile fish screens and bypasses. | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $375,000 |
|
Biological objectives Provide safe passage |
Metrics * Does the screen meet NOAA/FSOC specs?: Yes |
||||
| Install Fish Passage Structure | Construct Fish Passage Structures | Provide cost share funding for construction of fish passage structure | 10/1/2006 | 9/30/2009 | $375,000 |
|
Biological objectives Provide safe passage |
Metrics * If installing a ladder, does the ladder meet NOAA specs for attraction flow, pool dimensions, jump height, etc?: Yes |
||||
| Install Fish Screen | Construct Fish Screen at Old Lowden Ditch | Construct new juvenile fish screens at Old Lowden Ditch | 10/1/2007 | 5/31/2008 | $675,000 |
|
Biological objectives Provide safe passage |
Metrics * Does the screen meet NOAA/FSOC specs?: Yes * Is the screen New or a Replacement?: Replacement * Quantity of water protected by screening, as determined by what is stated in the water right or calculated based on flow rate: Up to 10,800 af/yr * Flow rate at the screen diversion allowed by the water right: Seasonal: 8.2-25.4 cfs |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Field Evaluations of Old Lowden Screens | Evaluate new screens constructed at Old Lowden Ditch to ensure they meet design criteria | 6/1/2008 | 9/30/2008 | $20,000 |
|
Biological objectives Provide safe passage |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/Compliance Monitoring |
||||
| Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | Produce Technical Report on Passage Facilities Evaluation | Produce technical report of field evaluation findings related to new Old Lowden screens | 10/1/2008 | 12/31/2008 | $5,000 |
|
Biological objectives Provide safe passage |
Metrics |
||||
| Install Fish Screen | Construct Fish Screen at Bergevin-Williams Ditch | Construct new juvenile fish screens at Bergevin-Williams Ditch | 10/1/2008 | 5/31/2009 | $825,000 |
|
Biological objectives Provide safe passage |
Metrics * Does the screen meet NOAA/FSOC specs?: Yes * Is the screen New or a Replacement?: Replacement * Flow rate at the screen diversion allowed by the water right: Seasonal: 6.2-17.6 cfs * Quantity of water protected by screening, as determined by what is stated in the water right or calculated based on flow rate: Up to 7,300 af/yr |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Field Evaluations of Bergevin-Williams Screens | Evaluate new screens constructed at Bergevin-Williams Ditch to ensure they meet design criteria | 6/1/2009 | 9/30/2009 | $20,000 |
|
Biological objectives Provide safe passage |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/Compliance Monitoring |
||||
| Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | Produce Technical Report on Passage Facilities Evaluation | Produce technical report of field evaluation findings related to new Bergevin-Williams screens | 9/1/2009 | 9/30/2009 | $5,000 |
|
Biological objectives Provide safe passage |
Metrics |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Field evaluations of Hofer Dam ladder and screens | Evaluate new ladder and screens constructed at Hofer Dam to ensure they meet design criteria | 6/1/2007 | 9/30/2007 | $20,000 |
|
Biological objectives Provide safe passage |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/Compliance Monitoring |
||||
| Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | Produce Technical Report on Passage Facilities Evaluation | Produce technical report of findings related to Hofer Dam screens and ladder evaluation | 10/1/2007 | 12/31/2007 | $5,000 |
|
Biological objectives Provide safe passage |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | All fundinding under this project will be subcontracted out so no line item budget is submitted | $270,000 | $950,000 | $1,105,000 |
| Totals | $270,000 | $950,000 | $1,105,000 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $2,325,000 |
| Total work element budget: | $2,325,000 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OWEB or SRSRB | Design/construction of passage improvements | $250,000 | $250,000 | $250,000 | Cash | Under Development |
| Totals | $250,000 | $250,000 | $250,000 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $250,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $250,000 |
Comments: After this budget period it is anticpated that only the cost share fund for additional passage improvement proejcts will continue under this project |
Future O&M costs: O&M costs are associated with the Old Lowden and Bergevin-Williams screen facilities. Annual projected total O&M cost for sites is $100,000
Termination date: Ongoing
Comments: It is anticpated that the cost share fund portion of this project will continue until all the passage concerns identified in the subbasin plan are corrected
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] | ||||||
| $235,000 | $915,000 | $1,375,000 | $2,525,000 | Capital | ProvinceCapital | Fund |
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $37,000 | $37,000 | $37,000 | $111,000 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $386,666 | $386,666 | $386,666 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
|
Comments: WA recommendation is to fund as much as possible from capital, and any saved expense funds stays within the Walla Walla subbasin. Combine the Walla Walla Juvenile and Adult passage Improvement project (199601100) with Gardena Irrigation Project and Walla Walla Flow. |
||||||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
NPCC comments: This is one of three closely linked passage proposals in the Walla Walla subbasin. Most of the proposal is well done. The proposal would be improved by reporting results from the subbasin level M&E project in summary format. The project needs to make the connection to biological data collected in the M&E project. This was a similar concern with previous ISRP reviews, and while there has been some improvement, it should be clear by now that projects must indicate results of past efforts clearly, particularly after 10 years of efforts. The efforts and results must be linked to subbasin plans, and this was not a strong area of the proposal. What data will be collected by other entities to evaluate success (or failure)? What are the key reference points from this data that will affect management decisions?
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
NPCC comments: This is one of three closely linked passage proposals in the Walla Walla subbasin. Most of the proposal is well done. The proposal would be improved by reporting results from the subbasin level M&E project in summary format. The project needs to make the connection to biological data collected in the M&E project. This was a similar concern with previous ISRP reviews, and while there has been some improvement, it should be clear by now that projects must indicate results of past efforts clearly, particularly after 10 years of efforts. The efforts and results must be linked to subbasin plans, and this was not a strong area of the proposal. What data will be collected by other entities to evaluate success (or failure)? What are the key reference points from this data that will affect management decisions?