This proposal is for operations and maintenance (O&M) of fish screens and fish ladders at five dams and diversions in the lower 33 miles of the Umatilla River, which allow juveniles and adults of wild and hatchery Chinook and coho salmon, and ESA listed steelhead trout, as well as a few bull trout to pass these migration barriers. The proponents also provide O&M for five aquaculture facilities to acclimate juvenile salmonids or hold and spawn adults in the Umatilla and Walla Walla rivers.

The ISRP found this proposal to be Not Applicable under the review process and does not request response from the proponents.

Nevertheless, the proponents should carefully address several points in their future proposals and annual reports.

1. SMART objectives. The goals and objectives appear sound, overall, but need to be framed as SMART objectives (see proposal instructions). For example, suggested wording for the two main objectives could be:
   1. "Perform cleaning, repair, and maintenance of mechanical, electrical, and hydraulic systems to maximize passage of adult and juvenile salmonids at five migration barriers in the lower 33 miles of the Umatilla River, through FY 2027.
   2.  Provide operations and maintenance services required to mitigate high flow events that cause flooding of facilities, through 2027.” 
      
      
2. Summary of criteria and functioning of fish passage facilities. The proponents state that project activities are evaluated primarily by whether the operations and maintenance meet the criteria for fish passage outline by NOAA Fisheries, apparently in a NMFS (2011) document. These criteria are not presented in this proposal but are linked in the proposal for Umatilla and Walla Walla Fish Passage Operations (198802200).  
   
   The citation is: NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2011. Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design. NMFS, Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. 
   
   If the objective is to meet these criteria on a daily basis, then the ISRP asks the proponents to, first, present the criteria in a table. Second, please provide a table showing the dates each fish ladder and screen was inspected and whether fish passage was likely impeded or not based on the inspection. For example, you could color code these entries (red vs. green shading) to provide a quick visual summary of how well the facilities were functioning. These data are critical to evaluate whether these facilities are meeting the objectives laid out in the proposal. 
   
   
3. Lamprey passage. The proposal indicates O&M activities are to be conducted to minimize adverse effects on Pacific lamprey, apparently by minimizing effects on bed materials that provide habitat for their larvae. However, adult lampreys also need to pass upstream over migration barriers to reach their spawning grounds. The proponents should clarify what O&M activities are undertaken to ensure passage of adult lamprey, in addition to that of salmonids. 
   
   
4. Update to current program objectives. The proponents refer to biological objectives listed in the Council’s 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program, but the current plan was approved in 2014 with a 2020 addendum (see: https://www.nwcouncil.org/reports/2014-columbia-river-basin-fish-and-wildlife-program). Please update these objectives, if needed, using the most recent plan amendments, and reference this plan. 
   
   
5. Maintenance costs. In the proposal and the presentation to the ISRP, the proponents emphasized that funds are lacking to maintain more than 30 drum screens, which will create major problems for fish passage when these eventually fail. The costs for needed maintenance were not specified in the proposal but should be presented to the Fish and Wildlife Program to allow planning for them. 
   
   
6. Climate adaptation for future flooding. The Umatilla River sustained a “500-year” flood in February 2020, which damaged various fish passage and fish holding facilities, and all facilities required substantial maintenance. The ISRP suggests that, given ongoing climate change, severe events like these will increase future O&M costs. Climate adaptation for these facilities will require thinking carefully about infrastructure improvements and increased maintenance. 
   
   
7. M&E matrix – support. As habitat projects and monitoring projects are not presented as part of an integrated proposal or plan, the need for a crosswalk to identify the linkages between implementation and monitoring is extremely important for basins or geographic areas. The ISRP is requesting a response from the Umatilla Basin Natural Production Monitoring and Evaluation Project (199000501) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the basin. We ask your project to assist them in creating the summary and provide information to them about what is being monitored for your implementation project and where and when the monitoring occurs. A map or maps of locations of monitoring actions would be helpful in this regard.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

Although this project does not engage in habitat restoration per se, it serves as part of a suite of projects that aim to improve habitat and fish access to the Umatilla River and its tributaries. As the project title implies, the objectives are to maintain fish passage facilities, primarily in the lower river (irrigation diversions), but the project also maintains hatchery salmon acclimation ponds in the Umatilla River subbasin. The maintenance of fish passage facilities is carried out by the Westland Irrigation District, while project oversight is provided by the Umatilla Fish Passage Operations project. The technical background and significance to regional programs were adequately explained. River conditions, for example discharge, debris load, and bedload transport, can affect fish passage and screening efficiencies. Maintaining and operating passage facilities according to established criteria are important regional functions.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

Inadequate up- and downstream passage was identified as the primary cause for the extirpation of Chinook and coho salmon and decline of summer steelhead in the Umatilla subbasin. In the 1980s, ODFW and CTUIR began implementing the Umatilla Fisheries Restoration Plan. An important part of this plan was to construct fish passage facilities on BOR and irrigation dams. Once built, these structures needed to be maintained. Project personnel remove rocks and debris from fish ladders, screens, by-pass outlets, and forebays. They ensure that gates and screens meet passage criteria, repair screens, and maintain trash racks. Additionally, the project assists the Umatilla Hatchery Satellite Facilities O&M project maintain juvenile acclimation sites. Project personnel do not initiate changes to maintenance activities; all such changes originate from the biological staff of the Fish Passage Operations project.

The history and accomplishments of the project were adequately explained. Results were described in general terms as maintenance and repairs on fishways and pipes. Although the proposal states that improvements in Chinook and steelhead passage and survival have occurred as a result of these maintenance actions, no biological data were presented. Likewise, the proposal states that adjustments to maintenance activities have occurred following feedback from the biological staff of the Fish Passage Operation project, but no specific examples were given. An example or two would have helped illustrate project results and adaptive management.

Because this is an operation and maintenance project that performs no RM&E, there was no evaluation of results. However, the ISRP believes that O&M projects such as this one can assist RM&E projects by providing infrastructure for tag detection and other monitoring activities.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

The project is closely linked to the Umatilla Fish Passage Operations, Umatilla Basin Power Repay, Umatilla Hatchery Satellite Facilities O&M, Umatilla Basin Natural Production M&E, and Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin projects. Project personnel work closely with CTUIR and ODFW. Biological oversight is provided by staff from the Umatilla/Walla Walla Fish Operations project. No emerging limiting factors where listed.

The relationship of the fish passage O&M work to other habitat-related projects in the Umatilla subbasin was adequately described. No emerging limiting factors were identified, and the project does not involve tagging fish to estimate passage survival at the irrigation diversions, although this function could be added at some point in the future.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Deliverables and work elements were clearly explained. However, the proposal gave somewhat more detail about the fish passage O&M methods than the acclimation pond maintenance methods, for example, how are the ponds cleaned when not in use?

Two deliverables were identified. One was to preserve passage at Umatilla water diversion sites by maintaining fencing, removing debris, cleaning trash racks, adjusting flow gates, and performing annual repairs as needed. The other deliverable was to help maintain hatchery acclimation sites by performing repairs as needed to intake structures, screens, spawning areas, and other hatchery infrastructure. No scientific data are collected, although there are anecdotal records of fishes recovered during the cleaning operations.

General Comment

The project sponsors are providing support for other projects in an effective manner. Collaboration with sponsors of other projects appears to be excellent.

===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

This is a straightforward project to maintain and repair fish passage facilities at five irrigation diversions and to maintain five acclimation ponds. As part of a larger suite of habitat restoration projects in the Umatilla subbasin it meets scientific criteria. The qualification is that project staff should work with other Umatilla habitat projects to develop ways of monitoring migrant mortality at the passage facilities to verify that the maintenance actions are meeting objectives. In addition, opportunities to use the screening facilities for monitoring downstream migrants (through tag recoveries) should be considered if the ability to detect marked individuals is in place.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

Although this project does not engage in habitat restoration per se, it serves as part of a suite of projects that aim to improve habitat and fish access to the Umatilla River and its tributaries. As the project title implies, the objectives are to maintain fish passage facilities, primarily in the lower river (irrigation diversions), but the project also maintains hatchery salmon acclimation ponds in the Umatilla River subbasin. The maintenance of fish passage facilities is carried out by the Westland Irrigation District, while project oversight is provided by the Umatilla Fish Passage Operations project. The technical background and significance to regional programs were adequately explained. River conditions, for example discharge, debris load, and bedload transport, can affect fish passage and screening efficiencies. Maintaining and operating passage facilities according to established criteria are important regional functions.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

Inadequate up- and downstream passage was identified as the primary cause for the extirpation of Chinook and coho salmon and decline of summer steelhead in the Umatilla subbasin. In the 1980s, ODFW and CTUIR began implementing the Umatilla Fisheries Restoration Plan. An important part of this plan was to construct fish passage facilities on BOR and irrigation dams. Once built, these structures needed to be maintained. Project personnel remove rocks and debris from fish ladders, screens, by-pass outlets, and forebays. They ensure that gates and screens meet passage criteria, repair screens, and maintain trash racks. Additionally, the project assists the Umatilla Hatchery Satellite Facilities O&M project maintain juvenile acclimation sites. Project personnel do not initiate changes to maintenance activities; all such changes originate from the biological staff of the Fish Passage Operations project.

The history and accomplishments of the project were adequately explained. Results were described in general terms as maintenance and repairs on fishways and pipes. Although the proposal states that improvements in Chinook and steelhead passage and survival have occurred as a result of these maintenance actions, no biological data were presented. Likewise, the proposal states that adjustments to maintenance activities have occurred following feedback from the biological staff of the Fish Passage Operation project, but no specific examples were given. An example or two would have helped illustrate project results and adaptive management.

Because this is an operation and maintenance project that performs no RM&E, there was no evaluation of results. However, the ISRP believes that O&M projects such as this one can assist RM&E projects by providing infrastructure for tag detection and other monitoring activities.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

The project is closely linked to the Umatilla Fish Passage Operations, Umatilla Basin Power Repay, Umatilla Hatchery Satellite Facilities O&M, Umatilla Basin Natural Production M&E, and Juvenile Salmonid Outmigration and Survival in the Lower Umatilla River Basin projects. Project personnel work closely with CTUIR and ODFW. Biological oversight is provided by staff from the Umatilla/Walla Walla Fish Operations project. No emerging limiting factors where listed.

The relationship of the fish passage O&M work to other habitat-related projects in the Umatilla subbasin was adequately described. No emerging limiting factors were identified, and the project does not involve tagging fish to estimate passage survival at the irrigation diversions, although this function could be added at some point in the future.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Deliverables and work elements were clearly explained. However, the proposal gave somewhat more detail about the fish passage O&M methods than the acclimation pond maintenance methods, for example, how are the ponds cleaned when not in use?

Two deliverables were identified. One was to preserve passage at Umatilla water diversion sites by maintaining fencing, removing debris, cleaning trash racks, adjusting flow gates, and performing annual repairs as needed. The other deliverable was to help maintain hatchery acclimation sites by performing repairs as needed to intake structures, screens, spawning areas, and other hatchery infrastructure. No scientific data are collected, although there are anecdotal records of fishes recovered during the cleaning operations.

General Comment

The project sponsors are providing support for other projects in an effective manner. Collaboration with sponsors of other projects appears to be excellent.

===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 1:17:09 PM.

The Response emphasizes the ISRP Programmatic Comment that the projects making up the Council's "Umatilla Initiative" are not susceptible to scientific peer review in isolation one from another. The Response notes, for example, that this particular project has responsibility only for operation and maintenance of facilities used by other projects, and has no information on benefits to Fish and Wildlife. It refers the ISRP to other proposals, such as #198802200, in which such information might be found. The response "agreed" with the ISRP comment that "The facilities that are maintained in this project should be called for in other projects that are referenced in this one. Justification for this project should be specifically provided in the group of individual projects that use the facilities maintained and operated by this one." (ISRP review June 2006)

Programmatic Comments on the Umatilla Initiative:

This complex Umatilla Initiative includes numerous individual projects, most of which are scientifically justifiable only in the larger context of the plan into which they fit. However, for whatever reason, they have been presented to the ISRP as individual proposals. The cross-referencing in the responses to other proposals where information may be found, is not sufficiently helpful to reviewers to make possible a meaningful scientific review. Please see the response review on 198802200. 198343600 (Umatilla Passage O&M), 198802200 (Umatilla Fish Passage Operations), and 198902700 (Power Repay Umatilla Basin Project), totaling ~$7.2M over the three years, deal with the same project and issues. It remains a difficult task to sort this project out from the others, and to obtain a coherent response on the issues and fish response, in order to conduct a scientific peer review that would lead to project approval.

This project and others like it are individual parts of what the Council has referred to as the "Umatilla Initiative." As such, none of them is a stand-alone project that can be subjected to scientific peer review on its own merits but needs to be reviewed in the larger context of a plan for restoration of anadromous fishes in the Umatilla Basin. The plan described in the Umatilla Subbasin Plan includes several major efforts, listed below: (These are drawn from recollections of the ISRP review of the Umatilla/Willow Subbasin Plan.)

1. Water is pumped from the Columbia River into the Umatilla Basin with the twin objectives of supplementing supplies for irrigation and supplementing instream flows for fish. Water is over-allocated for irrigation, which leads at times to dewatering of the lower 30 to 50 miles of the Umatilla River. The pumping system was constructed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BUREC), which continues to maintain it. However, charges for electricity to operate the pumps, are funded by BPA as recommended by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council under its Fish and Wildlife Program. The Bureau of Reclamation is developing plans for a Phase III construction project, which would enlarge the capacity of the system.

2. The Umatilla Hatchery was constructed and operates with BPA funds as recommended by the Council. Chinook salmon have been restored to the Umatilla River as a result of hatchery operations. Dewatering of the lower river at times still requires trapping and transportation of adult and juvenile fish around the lower section of the river.

3. Habitat improvement is being undertaken in the Umatilla Basin to restore its utility for spawning and rearing of salmon and steelhead. Fish produced as a result of habitat improvement there will still be affected by flow conditions, including dewatering in the lower reaches of the Umatilla River.

4. A study of lamprey is underway to identify limiting factors and find ways to restore their abundance in the Umatilla Basin. Flow conditions and other passage problems are likely to be primary limiting factors among those to be found in the Umatilla River.

Identification of Particular Subjects that Warrant Review:

Our curiosity has been especially aroused with regard to the water pumping measure adopted to improve instream flows in the Umatilla River (Proposal #198902700 Power Repay). We find that virtually no attention has been given to evaluation of effectiveness of this measure in achieving one of its primary stated objectives to improve stream conditions for fish. For example, the ISRP, in our review of June 2006 asked the proponents if there is a cap to the volume of water that might be requested to be pumped, and if so, what is the cap? It appears that the answer to that question is not straightforward, or perhaps not available. We are told in the response to proposal #198802200 (pages 2 and 3) that requests for pumped water, made by this project, (or by the Stanfield Irrigation District?), are made to the Bureau of Reclamation through the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). The latter agency does the accounting for both the exchange and storage portions of the Umatilla Basin Project (UBP of BUREC). The responses describe a complex system for deciding when and where to pump the water and release it, but the most complete description, found in proposal #198802200, explains only that "The volume of water to be pumped depends on which "phase" of the UBP is being exchanged." (page 2)

The Response to #198802200 also notes "Currently, there is no M & E specific to the passage program being conducted although an updated passage conditions assessment has been proposed for 07-09 under project 19000501. However, this passage assessment component is not identified for funding at this time." (page 2). The ISRP has previously called attention to the need for a monitoring and evaluation plan to be described in each proposal. Without inclusion of M & E information, the ISRP is unable to discover to what degree or whether anadromous fishes actually benefit from actions proposed. Nor have we been able to identify a proposal that would monitor and/or evaluate the effects on fish of the passage facilities in the Umatilla River.

It remains unclear why the total cost of the Power Repay Project #198902700 ($1.5 million) is charged to the Council's Fish and Wildlife Budget, when the pumped water is shared "bucket for bucket' with irrigators.

Conclusions
Although a rigorous pursuit of Congress' charge to the ISRP would result in a conclusion of "not fundable" based upon the criteria we are instructed to use and the information we have been given, we conclude that would be disruptive rather than constructive at this particular time. However, we strongly urge Council to pursue a scientific peer review of the Umatilla Initiative, as soon as possible.

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.

Firstly, for the ISRP review we recommend that a unified proposal be developed that would encompass the four major efforts listed above. It would address each of the 10 subjects listed in the standard proposal form that then form the basis for ISRP review. In particular, specific plans for monitoring and evaluation are needed in order to establish expected or measured benefits to fish. This suggests that, for example, the 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.

Secondly, we recommend that the Council ask the Independent Economic Advisory Board to conduct an analysis of the Umatilla Initiative to address specifically two key questions:
1. Since pumped water is shared "bucket for bucket" between irrigators and fish, what is the appropriate charge to Council's Fish and Wildlife Program of the cost of pumping water from the Columbia River into the Umatilla Basin? (Presently estimated at $1.5 million per year.)
2. Are there more cost-effective measures that could restore water for fish into the Umatilla River; e.g., what might be the relative cost/benefits of purchase of lands and their associated water rights versus the present cost of electricity to pump water from the Columbia River?