FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25081

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

Fundable if a response is provided that adequately addresses the ISRP's concerns about the completeness of the written proposal.

This is a short, straightforward proposal to remove migration barriers in a subbasin of the Umatilla River that is a high producer of summer steelhead and contains redband trout. Farming and irrigation have resulted in >5 major barriers to migration (and other smaller ones) due to obstructions and inadequate ladders. Dams were used instead of infiltration galleries or other alternatives. Despite these former abuses, Birch Creek has a wild stock of steelhead estimated at 30% of the subbasin production, and is a focus of other habitat restoration work. The plan is to install stepped dams with lower heads, in series, with passage facilities, dealing with the worst cases first.

Nonetheless, the written proposal is incomplete in several respects. The site visit and presentation helped alleviate many misgivings from the proposal (e.g., lack of a map), but we are still left with an inadequate written proposal. In Part 1, the city and state are not given for the PI and the objectives or tasks are not presented (although they are given in narrative form in Part 2). These should be provided to go along with the cost breakdowns. In the narrative, there is good background, regional rationale, and relationships to other projects. The narrative does not have a full breakdown of objectives and tasks, either, that would match the cost breakdown of Part 1. There are only general plans for deciding on projects to undertake and then doing them. The possible barrier remediation projects to be undertaken, among the options referenced from the Subbasin Summary (but not listed in the proposal), are not specified. It would be helpful if the proposal gave alternative ways to solve the passage barrier problems followed by why the proposed approaches were selected. See Project Number 199801800 - Holliday Ranch; it had some innovative engineering techniques like infiltration galleries, islands, and rubber dams. It would be useful to have a short discussion of what alternatives are feasible and cost effective. The proposal states that one fishway in place in Birch Creek is functioning well, but it would be helpful to know how this conclusion was reached (please explain in response). The work would be subcontracted from the ODFW office, but there is no indication of who would do the further planning, contracting, or work (not much listed for facilities). The general plans include no monitoring and evaluation of effectiveness of the projects when completed (including obtaining baseline data on the blockage prior to the project). This project needs effectiveness level monitoring at a minimum (Tier 1 as given in the general ISRP Preliminary Comments, which should be read along with this set of comments).

Birch Creek seems to be a good watershed on which to do remedial work for passage barriers in order to maintain and expand existing stocks of steelhead and trout. But we need more specifics on the record in the proposal. Therefore, the ISRP asks for a response that rectifies the deficiencies noted above.

Comment:

Comment:

A response was provided that adequately addressed the ISRP's concerns about the completeness of the original written proposal. The original proposal combined with the response to the ISRP's preliminary comments provide an adequate basis for funding. There was an Action Plan submittal as well, focusing on different barriers in Birch Creek.

This is a straightforward proposal to remove migration barriers in a subbasin of the Umatilla River that is a high producer of summer steelhead and contains redband trout. Farming and irrigation have resulted in >5 major barriers to migration (and other smaller ones) due to obstructions and inadequate ladders. Fish-blocking dams were used instead of infiltration galleries or other fish-friendly alternatives. Despite these former abuses, Birch Creek has a wild stock of steelhead estimated at 30% of the Umatilla subbasin production, and is a focus of other habitat restoration work. The plan is to install stepped dams with lower heads, in series, with passage facilities, dealing with the worst cases first. The construction work would be subcontracted from the ODFW office, with oversight by ODFW staff.

The written proposal was incomplete in several respects, but adequately supplemented. The site visit, oral presentation, and response to the ISRP's preliminary comments helped alleviate most questions from the written proposal. The proposal's narrative provided good background, regional rationale, and relationships to other projects. The response clarified the objectives, tasks, and methods. The barrier sites were listed in the response, with their major characteristics. Alternative methods for removing barriers were discussed and the reasons given for selecting particular methods for particular projects. A monitoring and evaluation task was added in the response (although with professed need for further funding). This follow-up monitoring seems needed to verify that the projects are successful, even though the Oregon guidelines for such work will be followed (results of monitoring may be useful for evaluating the guidelines, as well). Although the proponents seemed to balk at the suggestion of the need for monitoring, the ISRP believes that the project must incorporate this (not necessarily additional) cost into their proposal. The proposed radio-tracking study to document passage may be excessively expensive (traditional mark-recapture techniques may suffice to document movement of juveniles upstream past previous barriers). It would be valuable to tie into an overall sub-basin monitoring and evaluation effort that documents the changes in salmonid yield that can be related to their particular project, perhaps via smolt or adult sampling as well as a tagging process.

Birch Creek seems to be a good watershed on which to do remedial work for passage barriers in order to maintain and expand existing stocks of steelhead and trout. It could be a good model for other watersheds in the region.

Comment:

Comments
Birch Creek has a wild stock of summer steelhead estimated at over 30% of the Umatilla subbasin production & is the focus of other habitat restoration work. Suggest follow-up monitoring to verify that the projects are successful -- would be valuable to tie into an overall sub-basin monitoring & evaluation effort that documents the changes in salmonid yield that can be related to this particular project, perhaps via smolt or adult sampling as well as a tagging process.

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? yes

Comment:

Nevertheless, this project has some advantages. Tributary passage improvements are a very high off-site mitigation priority for BPA, perhaps higher than habitat enhancement, depending on circumstances. We are particularly interested in passage projects that also increase or secure in-stream flows (e.g., the proposed Whitney Diversion project) and that provide cost sharing. We understand that the Weinke Diversion project depends upon a cost-share from OWEB or another party to pay for the pumping equipment, while BPA funds would cover dam removal and bank stabilization. These passage barriers impede but do not entirely block adult steelhead. They probably are complete barriers for upstream movement of juveniles, although the number of juveniles potentially affected is not known. Unfortunately, the proposal does not describe (e.g., with a map) the locations of the proposed projects with respect to steelhead spawning and rearing areas and relative to other passage barriers. A subbasin plan or other management planning document that clearly listed the priority problems and preferred remedies would have helped us understand the advantages of the proposed work.

BPA gives qualified support for funding the Weinke and Whitney removals, one in 2002 and the other in 2003 at the discretion of the sponsor. Weinke is the tallest of the dams and is the lowest on the mainstem, according to the project sponsor, therefore providing probably the greatest benefit of the six actions proposed. Our support depends upon the sponsor obtaining other funding for the pumping station. BPA actually prefers that the water right be obtained for in-stream use and would be willing to consider partial funding to obtain and convert that right. Similarly, for the Whitney project, we would greatly prefer that BPA-funded dam removal be part of a package that also secured the water right for in-stream use, but securing that right would not be a requirement. A new and reasonable budget would be required for the reduced level of work.

Although BPA desires to evaluate the effectiveness of passage barrier removal, we do not recommend an M&E objective for this project at this time. We hope to evaluate similar actions in other subbasins where the BOR will be funding for implementation and effectiveness evaluations.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment: