FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 198902700
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 |
|---|---|
| 198902700 Narrative | Narrative |
| Columbia Plateau: Umatilla Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Columbia Plateau: Umatilla Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Power Repay Umatilla Basin Project |
| Proposal ID | 198902700 |
| Organization | Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Jonathan McCloud |
| Mailing address | P.O. Box 3621 Portland, OR 97208 |
| Phone / email | / jmmccloud@bpa.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | Mark Shaw |
| Review cycle | Columbia Plateau |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Umatilla |
| Short description | Provide power or reimbursement of power costs to Bureau of Reclamation for Umatilla Basin Project pumping plants that provide Columbia River water to irrigators in exchange for Umatilla River water left instream. |
| Target species | Coho, Fall Chinook, Spring Chinook, and Summer Steelhead. Summer Steelhead are part of the Mid-Columbia ESU. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 45.92 | -119.35 | Phase I pumping plant located in the city of Umatilla |
| 45.909 | -119.1583 | Phase II pumping plant located at Sand Station near Hat Rock State Park |
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 |
|---|---|
| 1990-1992 | Power cost reimbursement for interim pumping measures prior to initiation of the Umatilla Basin Project occurred annually. Fish passage flows were improved in the lower Umatilla River below Threemile Dam. |
| 1993-2001 | Power cost reimbursement for the Umatilla Basin Project has occurred annually. Enhanced fish passage flows in the lower 50 miles of the Umatilla River, from McKay Creek to the mouth. |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 8802200 | Umatilla River Fish Passage Operations | Project 8802200 provides oversite and coordination of Umatilla Basin Project which provides flow enhancement for juvenile and adult migration for which proposed project funds power costs. |
| 8343600 | Umatilla Passage Facilities O&M | Projects 8343600 and 8802200 operate and maintain passage facilities to maximize passage benefits associated with the Umatilla Basin Project which proposed project funds power costs for. |
| 8902401 | Umatilla River/WEID Screens M&E | Umatilla Basin Project provides flows for operation of passage facilities. |
| 8403300 | Umatilla Hatchery O&M | Umatilla Basin Project provides passage flows for juveniles produced at Umatilla Hatchery. |
| 8343500 | Umatilla Hatchery Satellite Facilities O&M | Umatilla Basin Project provides passage flows for juveniles released by project 8343500. |
| 9000500 | Umatilla Hatchery M&E | Umatilla Basin Project provides passage flows for hatchery adults and juveniles which project 9000500 monitors. |
| 9000501 | Umatilla Basin Natural Production M&E | Umatilla Basin Project provides passage flows for natural adults and juveniles which project 9000501monitors. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 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 2002 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 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Increase the survival of migrating adult and juvenile salmon and steelhead. | a. Provide power and/or reimbursement of power costs for operation of Umatilla Basin Project Columbia River pumping plants. | Ongoing | $1,750,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Increase the survival of migrating adult and juvenile salmon and steelhead. | 2003 | 2006 | $7,000,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $1,750,000 | $1,750,000 | $1,750,000 | $1,750,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 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 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Subcontractor | Retail power service contracts with Umatilla Electric Co-op and Pacific Power. | $1,750,000 |
| $1,750,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $1,750,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $1,750,000 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $825,000 |
| % change from forecast | 112.1% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
Increase in costs directly related to corresponding increases in retail power costs.
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Other budget explanation
This is a nondiscretionary project authorized by Congress under the Umatilla Basin Project Act. BPA is mandated under the Act to provide power or reimbursement of power costs for the fish/flow pumping exchange. Out year budget forecasts are difficult due to the current volatility of the retail power market. Retail power costs could increase dramatically in the fall of 2001 and may start to decrease again beginning in FY 2003. These fluctuations are hard to project and are not reflected in the outyear budget estimates.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable - no response required
Jun 15, 2001
Comment:
Fundable. The functions of this project for restoration of salmon were finally made clear. A complicated program of water pumping that ensures flows for fish, and seems to have produced tangible benefits (see monitoring and evaluation, 199000501). The pumping enhances upstream and downstream passage for salmon and steelhead. The Subbasin Plan was particularly helpful in putting the Umatilla River projects in a coherent context. The implementation of the program seems to have begun in 1976, mandated by Congress, prior to the creation of the Power Planning Council. One is curious to know how the charges came to be the responsibility of BPA. This is especially important because power costs are rising so rapidly. When we first reviewed this project that annual cost was $450,000. It is now expected to exceed $1 million in the upcoming FY.
Comment:
Comment:
Fundable. The functions of this project for restoration of salmon were finally made clear. A complicated program of water pumping that ensures flows for fish, and seems to have produced tangible benefits (see monitoring and evaluation, 199000501). The pumping enhances upstream and downstream passage for salmon and steelhead. The Subbasin Plan was particularly helpful in putting the Umatilla River projects in a coherent context. The implementation of the program seems to have begun in 1976, mandated by Congress, prior to the creation of the Power Planning Council. One is curious to know how the charges came to be the responsibility of BPA. This is especially important because power costs are rising so rapidly. When we first reviewed this project that annual cost was $450,000. It is now expected to exceed $1 million in the upcoming fiscal year.Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUEnsures that flow is provided for fish in the lower 30 miles of the Umatilla River that is heavily diverted for agricultural use. In recent past, before the project began, inadequate passage conditions for both adult and juvenile migrants occurred at critical times in both the spring and fall . When conditions necessitate it, the program pays for the power costs to pump Columbia mainstem water to the farms that otherwise would use the diversions in the lower part of the Umatilla River.
Comments
This is for on-going pumping costs under phase 1 and 2 of the Act. The ISRP says that it is a complicated program of water pumping that ensures flow for fish and produces tangible results. Do not confuse the project with phase 3 of the Act, which according to HCD has considerable issue to be resolved. The power costs should not be as high is those reflected in the table. Not a priority subbasin per #149.
Already ESA Req? no
Biop? no
Comment:
This is a non-discretionary project required by congress. The proposal should be clearer about how the water/power exchange is used to benefit anadromosu fish. The proposal provides no such information. The CTUIR and ODFW plan for the use of this water very carefully. Data show that up and down-stream passage mortalities have decreased markedly since this project was put in place.Comment:
Power Repay Umatilla Basin Project, Project 198902700 Costs for Power Repay Umatilla Project #198902700 have more than doubled from last years budget figure, up from $800,000 last year, to $1,750,000 projected for FY 02. In 1999, the power repayment cost was $500,000. This project provides power or reimbursement of power costs to the Bureau of Reclamation for Umatilla Basin Project pumping plants that provide Columbia River water to irrigators in exchange for Umatilla River water left instream. It is not clear why costs have escalated.
Staff Recommendation: BPA has revised the estimate to $1,000,000 per year. In addition, request that BPA provide a report to the Council regarding the repayment terms for the Umatilla Basin Project pump exchange. Bonneville must report on how the project is managed, how costs were historically determined, and the formula for the current cost estimate.
Budget effect on base program (Project 198902700):
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 |
|---|---|---|
| No effect | No effect | No effect |
Comment:
Comment:
Power repay does not cover for half of July and early August, might want to engage the pumping costs for lamprey, which would be a scope modification.Comment:
The FY04/05 estimates were calculated by using FY03 invoices paid, as well as anticipated costs for the remainder of FY03, based on current spending patterns.NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website