FY 2001 High Priority proposal 200107500
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 |
|---|---|
| 23046 Narrative | Narrative |
| Columbia Plateau: Walla Walla Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Columbia Plateau: Walla Walla Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Increase In Stream Flows to De-watered Stream Reaches in the Walla Walla Basin |
| Proposal ID | 200107500 |
| Organization | Walla Walla County Conservation District (WWCCD) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Mike Pelissier |
| Mailing address | 1501 Business One Circle, Suite 101 Walla Walla, WA 99362 |
| Phone / email | 5095226340 / consvdist@wwics.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | Mike Pelissier |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 High Priority |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / Walla Walla |
| Short description | This project will work with private landowners and irrigation districts to implement 4 innovative, realistic, measurable solutions to improve flow on critical de-watered stream reaches. |
| Target species | Steelhead, bull trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 46.07 | -118.17 | Mill Creek |
| 46.0337 | -118.6823 | Touchet River |
| 46.0624 | -118.9393 | Walla Walla River |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS | Action 149 | NMFS | BOR shall initiate programs in three priority subbasins (identified in the Basinwide Recovery Strategy) per year over 5 years, in coordination with NMFS, FWS, the states and others, to address all flow, passage, and screening problems in each subbasin over 10 years. The Corps shall implement demonstration projects to improve habitat in subbasins where water-diversion-related problems could cause take of listed species. Under the NWPPC program, BPA addresses passage, screening, and flow problems, where they are not the responsibility of others. BPA expects to expand on these measures in coordination with the NWPPC process to complement BOR actions described in the action above. |
| NMFS | Action 183 | NMFS | Initiate at least three tier 3 studies (each necessarily comprising several sites) within each ESU (a single action may affect more than one ESU). In addition, at least two studies focusing on each major management action must take place within the Columbia River basin. The Action Agencies shall work with NMFS and the Technical Recovery Teams to identify key studies in the 1-year plan. Those studies will be implemented no later than 2003. |
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
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 |
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
| FY 2002 | FY 2003 |
|---|---|
| $3,000 | $3,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: 1 | $37,500 |
| Supplies | pipes, flowmeters, monitoring equipment | $119,500 |
| Travel | $2,000 | |
| Indirect | $30,000 | |
| Subcontractor | $115,000 | |
| Other | water lease/purchase | $280,000 |
| $584,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $584,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $584,000 |
| FY 2001 forecast from 2000 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| WDOE | Water purchase | $450,000 | cash |
| NFWF (application pending) | Cost share | $425,000 | cash |
| CREP program | Installation of buffers and conservation easements | $385,000 | cash |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Objective 1 of the proposal meets the High Priority criteria. It offers specific on-the-ground site specific actions that will provide instream water rights and improve flows in the Walla Walla River for the benefit of ESA listed species. Objectives 2 - 4 offer promising approaches but do not appear to fit this solicitation. These objectives are appropriate for submittal in the upcoming Columbia Plateau Provincial Review. The monitoring is clearly spelled out, but it includes no biological component. A major shortcoming of the proposal is that it does not present a net flow-increase figure. In other words, the proposal predicts an amount of water discharge (4,522 gpm or about 10 cfs) released from the present type of irrigation to benefit the streams, but it does not predict and subtract from this the amount of water the new irrigation system will deprive streams of via shallow-well pumping and perhaps other operations. How much water will be lost from the groundwater pumping? What is the net gain?Comment:
This proposal is related to #23006. Objective #1 appears to be ready to implement, but specific land-owners and locations are not identified for the other objectives/tasks. The work needs continuing coordination with the F&W managers to assure that priority areas are funded.Comment:
23007 - Conservation easement on Baker Ranch, and 23046 - Increase instream flows to dewatered streams in the Walla Walla basin. These projects both restore in-stream flows directly. This is a high-priority action that must be linked to a Tier 3 monitoring project. (If project 23007 has other riparian restoration activities associated with it, monitoring should be coordinated with 23053 below, and associated projects.)Comment:
Comment:
This project would directly restore instream flows to dewatered streams in the Walla Walla subbasin. The applicant indicates that many willing landowners have expressed interest in participating. Restoring instream flows is a high priority action, and Washington State has a trust water rights program that would ensure such flows are protected in-stream. However, NMFS concludes more information is needed because project planning, participation, and description are not yet complete. Reviewers were unable to analyze what work will actually occur on the ground. In addition, to realize the full benefits of the action it should be linked to a tier-three M&E study. Project sponsors indicate such information is available. If this is the case, the project may be appropriate for implementation at this time. Otherwise, it should be further developed and reconsidered during the provincial review process.Comment: