FY 2002 Blue Mountain proposal 27020

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:

The project goal is to acquire relatively small amounts of water that significantly impact flow in tributary habitats. The proposal is to acquire senior water rights for conversion to in-stream use. Small to medium landowners with livestock operations (where alternatives to irrigation-grown feed can be purchased) are the target sellers. OWT would work with OWRD to ensure that protectable rights are purchased, and with ODFW to ensure that the additional water results in demonstrable ecological benefits.

The goal is to acquire 3 cfs over a three-year period. A cost estimate is provided for each cfs ($60k). OWT requests funds for 2/3 of the costs of water rights acquisitions.

Inadequate flows in small streams and tributaries are identified as a major limiting factor for fish habitat. The technical background is excellent, and a convincing case is made for the rationale and significance of this project to regional programs. Objectives are systematically presented with associated tasks and methods. Methods for most tasks are described in adequate detail. However, more detail could be provided on the economic evaluation (Task 1.c) and how it will be conducted. How will evaluation of permanent transfers differ from that done for temporary leases?

In the presentation it was indicated that economic valuation of water rights is done to establish parameters for negotiation with landowner. If a short-term lease is being negotiated, the value of water to a landowner is assessed through a crop enterprise budget. If it is a permanent transfer, the value of water to the land is assessed in terms of the difference in sale prices of comparable land with and without water rights. Details of this approach should be presented in the proposal.

Monitoring and evaluation are included not only for the rights acquisition but also for the ecological impact of the increased in-stream flow. Cooperative monitoring of conservation impacts with tribes and state agencies is planned. More detail needs to be provided on monitoring methods. Although the OWT does not conduct the monitoring, they need to demonstrate that someone (ODFW, OWRD or the tribes) is assessing the biological impact on fish of the additional water. Impacts will likely need to be monitored in the aggregate.

The project has the potential to directly address problems of stream flow and temperature, but can such small increments of cfs can make an effective difference? What is the strategy for ensuring that they do? What is the evidence that the seemingly small flows being acquired (e.g., 0.09 cfs) will be of significant benefit in terms of the biology of the fish? The question is whether it is better to fragment available funds to get small cfs in many areas or to purchase a larger number of cfs in a smaller number of areas.

The response should indicate how the additional water will affect the flow regimes of the streams as they relate to the life cycles of the fishes and other organisms. What are the critical periods in the yearly cycle of natural fish production in the particular stream, and how will the added flow ameliorate limiting conditions?

A larger question that should be addressed by a future project pertains to the cumulative effect of these water right acquisitions on the ecological productivity of the streams and also on the pattern of riparian land use. For example, will changing the ownership of water rights appurtenant to the land create an incentive to take land out of agriculture and into an alternative use, such as housing?

Fifteenmile Creek might be a good demonstration site for this type of assessment.

Comment:

Comment:

Comment:

Comments
The project goal is to acquire relatively small amounts of water that significantly impact flow in tributary habitats, by acquiring senior water rights for conversion to in-stream use. However, acquisition site is not described. Project needs acquisition site to be located where 3 cfs would be a significant amount of increased flow. M&E are included not only for the rights acquisition, but also for the ecological impact of increased in-stream flow. Cooperative monitoring of conservation impacts with Tribes & state agencies is planned. Need to assess the biological impact on fish of the additional water.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

BPA RPA RPM:
151

NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
150

Comment: