Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Increase Naches River In-stream Flows Through Wapatox Power Buyout |
| Proposal ID | 200107100 |
| Organization | Yakama Nation (YN) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Paul J. Ward |
| Mailing address | PO Box 151 Toppenish, WA 98948 |
| Phone / email | 5098656262 / ward@yakama.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | Lynn Hatcher |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Action Plan |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Yakima |
| Short description | Cost share with Bureau of Reclamation to purchase and retire PacifiCorp's Wapatox Power Plant to benefit salmon and steelhead by increasing instream flows and enhance spawning and rearing habitat in the Naches River. |
| Target species | Steelhead, Bull trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 46.8 |
-120.9 |
Naches River |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
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
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $0 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $0 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Defer to Provincial Review
Date:
Jun 21, 2001
Comment:
Defer to Columbia Plateau Review. Fundable only if an adequate response is provided.
As reviewers commented during the High Priority review process in which the project was ranked B, the project would benefit fish in that the portion of the river that is bypassed by the canal which at times is dry or otherwise inaccessible to spring chinook, steelhead and Coho, as well as bull trout. Increased flow will lead to reconnection of the lower Naches River with upstream tributaries such as the American River. Costs will be shared with BOR. There are obvious policy issues of who should fund this that extend beyond the ISRP purview.
The project would clearly provide immediate and presumably substantial benefits to fish and wildlife, but the proposal does not provide a quantitative estimate of to what extent fish would be expected to benefit. Additional information on expected benefits (from EDT model, etc) is requested.
In addition, the monitoring and evaluation is not well described and needs to be clarified before being fundable (see ISRP General Comment on monitoring and evaluation in the ISRP's Columbia Plateau preliminary report).
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 29, 2001
Comment:
Projects 23028 and 26026 were conditionally approved subject to response by the sponsors to the ISRP comments and further ISRP Review. These were rated "defer to provincial review" and "do not fund" respectively. The Council recommended these projects because the ISRP found that they met the solicitation criteria, and because it appears likely that the sponsors will be able to supply the necessary information to satisfy the concerns noted in the ISRP's Action Plan Proposals review. Further, the Council conditionally recommends these projects because, notwithstanding some technical questions, the ISRP report indicates that the projects are likely to provide substantial immediate benefits.
In the case of proposal 23028, the ISRP's review of the proposal in the Columbia Plateau provincial review asked for additional information from the project sponsors of quantitative estimates of fish benefits, but said "The project would clearly provide immediate and presumably substantial benefits to fish and wildlife..." (ISRP 2001-6, p. 87).
Proposal 26026 promises to supply additional water for fish flows in the Lemhi River (13 cfs) through transfer from the Salmon River. The ISRP report said, "This proposal may offer a water transfer that will benefit fish in the Lemhi while doing minimal harm in the Salmon and could be especially beneficial if the Lemhi instream flow is increased immediately in 2001." The ISRP's questions centered on a need for additional information about potential impacts to the Salmon River. The Council was recently provided a letter from the chief of fisheries for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game that addressed those issues. We are asking the ISRP to review that response.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jul 12, 2001
Comment:
Pending Resolution of Policy Concerns
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 3, 2001
Comment:
Fundable under the Action Plan solicitation because it offers substantial stream flow increases. Consistently, the ISRP finds this proposal, after the response, also fundable in the Columbia Plateau Provincial review. The response makes the point that Wapatox is one part of a large program to significantly restore a large system whose ability to function naturally has been heavily reduced by a concerted human effort over a long period of time. As reviewers commented during the High Priority review process in which the project was ranked B, the project would benefit fish in that the portion of the river that is bypassed by the canal which at times is dry or otherwise inaccessible to spring chinook, steelhead and coho, as well as bull trout. Increased flow will lead to reconnection of the lower Naches River with upstream tributaries such as the American River.
As requested, the response attempts to clearly and quantitatively address benefits to fish. The reviewers were convinced that this project offers substantial and immediate gains for salmon and steelhead. The monitoring and evaluation component of the project was not adequately described in the response, perhaps this could be worked out by the Council and BPA in the Columbia Plateau project selection process.
There are obvious policy issues of who should fund this that extend beyond the ISRP purview.
