FY07-09 proposal 200733000

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:
Comments:

Final deliverables:

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: The sponsors need to provide a better justification for the project. The justification in the proposal is general, expressed in terms of how the project meets broad objectives of various plans. A justification specific to the project area needs to be given. Is the area an important fish production area? Is there critical habitat? How much relative flow increase will be achieved? The sponsors also need to provide some sort of estimate of the potential benefit to habitat and focal species. Does EDT or any other analysis show how much is water is needed to enhance fish populations and how the conserved flow from this project will contribute? Is the proposed project part of a larger plan or project to restore flow? Is this project a part of a concerted long-term effort to restore instream flows? Technical and scientific background: The problem is relatively straightforward. The sponsors propose to install piping to convey irrigation water and the saved water from this more efficient practice would be used to enhance instream flows year round. The sponsors need to provide an estimate of how much relative gain in flow will be achieved by the project. How much will fish habitat be enhanced by this flow increase and what life stages will be benefited? The proposal should include an estimate of what flows are needed to remove the threat to fish populations, attempt to show that the goal is possible and reasonable, and that this project helps to make a significant gain in meeting that goal. The sponsors need to provide more background on the project area. Will flow be increased in a single stream or multiple streams? Is there evidence that reduced flows in this (these) specific reaches reduced fish production? A map clearly identifying the project area would be helpful. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The Walla Walla Subbasin Plan identifies dewatering and low flows as a limiting factor for fish. The proposal generally is consistent with Plan by providing improvement of instream flows. Relationships to other projects: The project bears a direct relationship to one BPA funded project. Direct collaboration with this project was not discussed. Objectives: The objective is straightforward. It is to provide increased instream flow using water saved by installing piping to convey irrigation water. Flows will be held in trust for salmon. In some sections of the proposal the amount of water added to instream flow is given as 1.4 cfs, but in the objectives the amount is 4-5 cfs. Which is it? 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: The project is for construction. Monitoring and evaluation: No provisions are made for M&E. The proposal needs a description of how flows (and the hydrograph) will be monitored and how the water "savings" will benefit steelhead and salmon populations. Facilities, equipment, and personnel: Construction equipment and personnel will be secured through contract. Information transfer will be planned, if the proposal is funded. Benefits to focal and non-focal species: The project could be of benefit to multiple focal species. It is difficult to assess the benefits, however, because the sponsors provide little background information relating to project location, pre-project flows and habitat conditions, fish use of the specific area of the project, etc. Most of the justification for the project is in general terms. Non-focal species were not discussed. Non-focal species could benefit if increased flows were substantive enough to provide significant improvements.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable

NPCC comments: The sponsors provided clear responses to ISRP questions. They made heavy use of habitat models (EDT, PHABSIM) to forecast benefits from increased flow. This strategy permits development of a hypothesis regarding the benefits of the proposed action. The test of this hypothesis, and thus the science behind this project, awaits the availability of data to assess these predictions. This project could provide an opportunity to test the model results from EDT and PHABSIM. There is, at present, a leap of faith associated with the project. Additional flow in the affected reach may or may not be crucial for the target species. It would be, for example, if it were shown that production in this reach limits recruitment to the adult stages. It may be, however, that low survival in this reach is compensated by relatively high survival at some other location or life-history stage. If compensated, low survival in this reach would have no impact on recruitment to the adult stages. Ultimately, future expenditures in the basin and elsewhere for this kind of project will benefit from good M&E and reporting of results. 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.