FY 2007 Solicitation Homepage

Project Proposal Request for FY 2007 - FY 2009 Funding (Revised Summer 2006)

Proposal 198902700: Power Repay Umatilla Basin Project

Download this document in MS Word format
Open this document in PDF format

Table of Contents
Part 1. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative
Section 2: Project Location
Section 3: Project Species
Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Section 5: Relationship to Other Projects
Section 6: Biological Objectives
Section 7: Work Elements
Section 8: Budget
Section 9: Project Future
Section 10: Documents
Part 2. Reviews
Part 1 of 2. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Process Information:
Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized Status Form Generator
July 14, 2006 Finalized Jonathan McCloud

Proposal Type: Ongoing
Proposal Number: 198902700
Proposal Name: Power Repay Umatilla Basin Project
BPA Project Manager: Jonathan McCloud
Agency, Institution or Organization: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
Short Description: Provide reimbursement of power costs to Umatilla Electric Coopeative and Pacific Powr & Light Company for the Umatilla Basin Project pumping plants that provide Columbia River water to irrigators in exchange for Umatilla River water left instream
Information Transfer: No data is generated through this project. Bureau of Reclamation provides an annual report on Umatilla Basin Project exchange activities to the NWPCC.
 
Project Proposal Contacts
Contact Organization Address Phone/Email Roles Notes
Form Submitter
Jonathan McCloud BPA
Ph: 503-230-3509
Fax: 503-230-4564
Email: jmmccloud@bpa.gov
Form Submitter
All Assigned Contacts
Jonathan McCloud BPA
Ph: 503-230-3509
Fax: 503-230-4564
Email: jmmccloud@bpa.gov
BPA COTR
BPA Project Manager

Section 2: Project Location
Sponsor Province: Columbia Plateau ARG Province: No Change
Sponsor Subbasin: Umatilla ARG Subbasin: No Change
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Waterbody Location Description County/State Subbasin Primary?
45.55 119.21 Phase I pumping plant located in the city of Umatilla Umatilla, Oregon Umatilla No
45.55 119.9 Phase II pumping plant located at Sand Station near Hat Rock State Park Umatilla, Oregon Umatilla No

Section 3: Focal Species
Focal Species:
Primary Secondary Additional Species
All Anadromous Fish

Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project
Fiscal Year Accomplishments
2005 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.
2004 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.
2003 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.
2002 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.
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.
2000 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.
1999 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.
1998 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.
1997 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.
1996 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.
1995 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.
1994 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.
1993 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.
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.
1991 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.
1990 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.

Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects
Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source)
Funding Source Related ID Related Project Title Relationship
BPA 198343600 Umatilla Passage O&M 198343600 operate and maintain passage facilities to maximize passage benefits associated with the Umatilla Basin Project.
BPA 198802200 Umatilla Fish Passage Ops 198802200 - Increase adult and juvenile migrant survival in the Umatilla Basin. The project provides survival benefits for both hatchery and natural production by operating and maintaining ladders, bypasses, screen sites, trap facilities, and hauling equipment and coordination these operations with flow enhancement measures and diversion activities.
BPA 198902401 Eval Um Juvenile Sal Out Migra 198902401- Determines and strengthens the overall effectiveness of the fisheries restoration effort by evaluating the outmigration success of hatchery and natural juvenile salmonids and natural Pacific lamprey in the lower Umatilla River.
BPA 199000500 Umatilla Hatchery - M&E 199000500 - Montior and evaluate juvenile rearing, marking, tagging, survival, stock life history, fish health, mass marking, straying, sport fishing and catch contribution for salmon and steelhead reared at the Umatilla Hatchery.
BPA 199000501 Umatilla Basin Nat Prod M&E 199000501 - Monitors the restoration of naturally producing salmon and steelhead in the basin. The project objectives are to measure, estimate and report salmonid spawning success, rearing densities and abundance, habitat quality and quantity, production capacity of basin, life history characteristics, and migration timing and success.

Section 6: Biological Objectives
Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project
Biological Objective Full Description Associated Subbasin Plan Strategy Page Nos
Increase survival of juvenile and adult fish The method to accomplish this is by pumping Columbia River water in exchange for the Umatilla River water left instream. This is accomplished by providing power for operation of the Umatilla Basin Project Columbia River pumping plants. Umatilla Aquatic Objectives & Strategies #2 - Maintain and enhance natural production, productivity, abundance, life history characteristics, and genetic diversity of fish and mussels throughout the Umatilla Basin using habitat protection and improvement. 5.4 - 5.5
Increase survival of juvenile and adult fish The method to accomplish this is by pumping Columbia River water in exchange for the Umatilla River water left instream. This is accomplished by providing power for operation of the Umatilla Basin Project Columbia River pumping plants. Umatilla Aquatic Objectives & strategies #10 - Maintain and enhance flow for homing and passage of steelhead and chinook through the lower Umatilla River using flow restoration and enhancement. 5.4 - 5.5
Increase survival of juvenile and adult fish The method to accomplish this is by pumping Columbia River water in exchange for the Umatilla River water left instream. This is accomplished by providing power for operation of the Umatilla Basin Project Columbia River pumping plants. Umatilla Aquatic Objectives & Strategies #11 - Maintain and enhance steelhead and chinook rearing and spawning in the mainstem Umatilla River with flow enhancement and protection. 5.4 - 5.5

Section 7: Work Elements
Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives
Work Element Name Work Element Title Description Start Date End Date Estimated Budget
Acquire Water Instream Provide Columbia River water to irrigators in exchange for Umatilla River water left instream - EXISTING PROGRAM Provide power to Phase I and Phase II power plants to pump Columbia River water for irrigation use in exchange for Umatilla River water left instream to aid in adult and juvenile salmonid migration. 10/1/2008 9/30/2009 $1,500,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Acquire Water Instream Provide Columbia River water to irrigators in exchange for Umatilla River water left instream - EXISTING PROGRAM Provide power to Phase I and Phase II power plants to pump Columbia River water for irrigation use in exchange for Umatilla River water left instream to aid in adult and juvenile salmonid migration. 10/1/2007 9/30/2008 $1,500,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Acquire Water Instream Provide Columbia River water to irrigators in exchange for Umatilla River water left instream - EXISTING PROGRAM Provide power to Phase I and Phase II power plants to pump Columbia River water for irrigation use in exchange for Umatilla River water left instream to aid in adult and juvenile salmonid migration. 10/1/2006 9/30/2007 $1,500,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Acquire Water Instream Provide Columbia River water to irrigators in exchange for Umatilla River water left instream- PROPOSED EXPANSION Provide power to Phase I power plant to pump Columbia River water for irrigation use in exchange for Umatilla River water left instream to aid in Pacific lamprey adult migration. 7/1/2008 8/15/2008 $60,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Acquire Water Instream Provide Columbia River water to irrigators in exchange for Umatilla River water left instream- PROPOSED EXPANSION Provide power to Phase I power plant to pump Columbia River water for irrigation use in exchange for Umatilla River water left instream to aid in Pacific lamprey adult migration. 7/1/2007 8/15/2007 $60,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

Acquire Water Instream Provide Columbia River water to irrigators in exchange to Umatilla River water left instream- PROPOSED EXPANSION Provide power to Phase I power plant to pump Columbia River water for irrigation use in exchange for Umatilla River water left instream to aid in Pacific lamprey adult migration. 7/1/2009 8/15/2009 $60,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element


Section 8: Budget

Itemized Estimated Budget
Item Note FY 2007 Cost FY 2008 Cost FY 2009 Cost
Other This cost is "best" estimate. These are non-discretionary cost that BPA must pay. $1,560,000 $1,560,000 $1,560,000
Totals $1,560,000 $1,560,000 $1,560,000

Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets
Total Itemized Budget$4,680,000
Total Work Element budget$4,680,000

Cost sharing
Funding Source or Organization Item or Service Provided FY 2007 Est Value ($) FY 2008 Est Value ($) FY 2009 Est Value ($) Cash or in-kind? Status

Section 9: Project Future
Project Future Costs and/or Termination
FY 2010 Est Budget FY 2011 Est Budget Comments
$1,560,000 $1,560,000 Cost will fluctuate depending on the water year and on how much electricity cost are.
Future Operations & Maintenance Costs
This is a non-discretionary requirement set by Congress that BPA be required to provide the power to operate the Phase I/II fish/flow exchanges.
 
Termination Date Comments
Unknown/None This is a non-discretionary requirement set by Congress that BPA be required to provide the power to operate the Phase I/II fish/flow exchanges.
 
Final Deliverables
None

Section 10: Narrative
Document Type Size Date
Fix-it Loop Documents
Documents Originally Submitted with this Proposal

Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results
Account Type:
Expense
No changes were made to this proposal


NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 NPCC Rec
$1,000,000
FY 2008 NPCC Rec
$1,000,000
FY 2009 NPCC Rec
$1,000,000
Total NPCC Rec
$3,000,000
Budget Type:Expense
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Recommendation:Fund
NPCC Comments: See decision memo discussion of the Umatilla subbasin projects. Required by 1988 Umatilla Basin Project Act


NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 NPCC Rec
$1,000,000
FY 2008 NPCC Rec
$1,000,000
FY 2009 NPCC Rec
$1,000,000
Total NPCC Rec
$3,000,000
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
NPCC Comments:
NPCC Staff Comments: See decision memo comment. Required by 1988 Umatilla Basin Project Act

Local or MSRT Comments: After reviewing project spending history and projecting potential pumping costs, OSPIT recommends $1 million budget.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Final Review (August 31, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Not fundable (Qualified)
Comments: Please see the ISRP comments on Proposal #198343600, in which we call for a review of the Umatilla Initiative from a larger perspective than can be gained from review of individual proposals. This project and others in the Umatilla Basin like it are individual parts of the "Umatilla Initiative." As such, none of them is a stand-alone proposal that is susceptible to scientific peer review. This proposal, for example, includes no information on the amount of water pumped from the Columbia River or on possible effects on fish. The response refers the ISRP to other proposals, such as #198802200, under which monitoring is said to take place. Our examination of that proposal and its response to ISRP comments and questions led us to conclude that information being gathered is not adequate to evaluate the effectiveness of the pumping measure in terms of providing benefits to fish. Thus the basis for scientific review, according to the standards specified for the ISRP by Congress is inadequate.

We conclude that there is a need for review of the Umatilla Initiative from a larger perspective than can be provided by review of individual project proposals, such as we have in hand. This suggests that proponents might benefit by reorganizing their efforts under a single head. That would provide a unified perspective, leading to clarification of the fact that the success of all of the individual efforts are affected by the pumping of water from the Columbia River. Monitoring and evaluation should then focus upon documenting flow manipulations and measuring the effects on fish passage and survival.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Preliminary Review (June 2, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Response requested
Comments: A response is requested. See the comments under proposal 198802200 - Umatilla Fish Passage Operations for the three proposals involved with the Umatilla River tributary fish passage effort. For this proposal also see the comments below.

Comments specific to this proposal:

The objective states that the pumping of water from the Columbia River provides water to irrigators in exchange for Umatilla water left instream for fish. The first question that occurred to reviewers was "How much water is left in the river for fish?" The general answer appears on page 2 of the Narrative, where it is said that, "...for every portion of flow left instream that same amount is pumped to the irrigation districts." And later, on page 5, the narrative states, "The amount of water exchanged through the project, and the associated costs, vary from year to year depending on water availability in the Umatilla Basin. Both the natural flow and reservoir storage exchanges are directly related to annual flow conditions." While these statements clarify the criteria used for assignment of benefits of pumping, they raise more questions about how decisions are made to commence pumping, who makes those decisions on what basis, and who benefits from them. It is clear that the irrigators are made whole by the process. It remains unclear whether under conditions of low natural flow in the Umatilla, the irrigation districts make use of the pumping provision to supply holders of all water rights including junior water rights, in which case, the ultimate benefit to fish could be zero.

Question: Is there any adjustment in irrigation removals during years of low base flow in the Umatilla?

It appears, from the Narrative that, in spite of this pumping project, the lower 30-50 mile segment of the Umatilla River continues to run dry at times. We read that both adult and juvenile salmon must at certain times be captured and transported by truck to upper reaches of the river. The proposal to extend the duration of pumping to a longer portion of the year, and the Phase III proposal to pump additional water from the Columbia River is intended to address this problem. No doubt, specific data on volumes of water and expected benefits to fish will be used to justify a request to fund Phase III. This same information would assist the ISRP in its review of the existing project.

While the Narrative asserts that water made available by the project "has led to a reduction of over 90% in the number of adults and juveniles trapped and hauled on an annual basis", and we assume the meaning is that it has reduced the necessity to transport those fish, rather than that fewer fish are available now than previously, our curiosity is aroused. What numbers (or percentage) of fish are able to transit the lower river as a result of water made available by the project, compared to numbers (or percentages) without that water?

Question: Can the proponents provide a graph or table showing the data used to arrive at this conclusion?

The proposal states that, "It is assumed that these efforts provide more adequate passage conditions and increase survival for both migrating juveniles and adults" (paragraph 2, page 2 of the Narrative). While we do not consider that this project needs to conduct its own M&E, other than to account for the volumes of water pumped and the schedule of pumping, it ought to refer to M&E projects underway in the Umatilla River that can evaluate the effects of the flow augmentation strategy.

Would fish be better served by using the money spent for electricity to purchase water rights in the Umatilla Basin? An annual expenditure of the same $1.5 million should make possible a gradual accumulation of sufficient water to be able to measure the volume left in the river for fish.

In order to evaluate potential benefits to fish, reviewers need more information on the effects of water pumped on conditions in the 30-50 mile reach of river that is said to have flows at times low enough to restrict fish passage. Answers to the set of questions provided above should make this possible.

Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.