FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29001

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:

This is a proposal to develop a GIS database of the water rights in the western portion of the Colville Reservation. The overall objective is to obtain water to restore stream flows and lower water temperatures in order to aid bull trout (threatened), steelhead (endangered) and spring chinook salmon (extirpated but habitat available) and summer chinook salmon (depressed). The project would identify and evaluate water available to supplement flows. The tribe owns some water rights and proposes to obtain more from this process. From this, it is proposed to examine the possibility of establishing a water trust and a brokerage to manage water use. Once the existing rights and evaluations are catalogued, actions can be taken to obtain or transfer the rights for benefit of fish. Transfer to adjacent basins may be considered. In addition to the cataloguing, the project would conduct field inventories to assess water withdrawals. Once the catalogue is completed and actions taken to acquire water for fish, the project plans to collect and analyze stream flow data to verify uses.

The proposal is concise and generally well written. The project generally meets the ISRP evaluation criteria. A benefit to fish can be expected if water is actually obtained and/or transferred. There is careful and thorough justification in terms of the FWP, BiOp, the FCRPS Implementation Plan, and the Subbasin Summary. The project is a specific response to a call for innovative ideas for "water brokering." Relevant existing projects in the basin are listed in a table. The planning and monitoring objectives and tasks are well presented. Specific information to be catalogued is listed along with some of the sources of information. The objectives and tasks do not include any implementation (actually obtaining water and making water transfers). There is a plan for monitoring following implementation, however. Key personnel are described in good resumes. Facilities for the work will be available from the CCT (which will cost share), except for minor office equipment and supplies.

Important questions remain, which need to be addressed in a response. The main question is whether any implementation in the form of actual water acquisition or transfers are to be done under this project. Although the main objective is to do the inventory and related planning, it is not clear how many of the follow-on implementation options, if any, will be pursued in the 3-year period of funding, and when they would be accomplished (the project timeline goes to 2007). The presentation suggested that water transfer from No Name Creek aquifer to Omak Creek might occur soon. A monitoring section is included in the proposal for after implementation.

If implementation is to occur as part of this work, the planned physical water transfers are not clear. How is the water to be physically transferred, if any? Is it all on paper to allow more instream flow above Enloe Dam and possibly in Salmon and Omak Creek? Does that assume there is unclaimed water in the recipient basin that could serve as the water right from the donor? This seems to be unlikely. Just taking Salmon Creek as a sample, in that basin water rights apparently amount to about twice the annual flow out of the watershed. Or is the proposal talking about an actual movement of water by canal or pipeline from one basin to another? The review team became confused over just how much implementation is included, if any.

Although monitoring is included in the proposal (somewhat strange, if there is to be no implementation), a more detailed M&E plan is needed to monitor and evaluate the biological benefits (in addition to flow and temperature) of the project, assuming the work goes beyond inventory and into actual flow changes. If the monitoring is being conducted as part of another project, then the proponents need to describe the methods in detail or provide references to published documents. The software for monitoring was not clearly described.

In summary, the ISRP review team needs a clearer presentation of the logical sequencing of this work and how much planning, implementation, and monitoring is actually proposed for this 3-year contract period.

By way of information, the ISRP team suggests that the proponents look at the proposal #25074, Deschutes Water Exchange - see especially preliminary ISRP review. Do some of the comments and 7 questions apply here? See http://www.cbfwa.org/files/province/plateau/projects/25074.htm#reviews.

Comment:

Comment:

The proposal is concise and generally well written. The project meets the ISRP evaluation criteria. A benefit to fish can be expected if water is actually obtained and/or transferred. There is careful and thorough justification in terms of the FWP, BiOp, the FCRPS Implementation Plan, and the Subbasin Summary. The project is a specific response to a call for innovative ideas for "water brokering." Relevant existing projects in the basin are listed in a table. The planning and monitoring objectives and tasks are well presented. Specific information to be catalogued is listed along with some of the sources of information. The objectives and tasks do not include any implementation (actually obtaining water and making water transfers). There is a plan for monitoring following implementation, however. Key personnel are described in good resumes. Facilities for the work will be available from the CCT (which will cost share), except for minor office equipment and supplies.

The response was a helpful expansion of the proposal. The concerns of the ISRP are satisfied. The project is an innovative approach to obtaining instream flows, making use of the Tribes' unique treaty rights.

First, the response from the Office of Reservation Attorney was especially helpful in clarifying the significance of the year 1872 and logic behind the spatial extent of the proposal. Although this aspect had been somewhat confusing to reviewers, the ISRP did not question it, as it seemed outside our purview. Nonetheless, the history was interesting and helpful for clarifying the intent of the proposal. We suggest that similar material be used in the background sections of future proposals.

The matter of "unclaimed" water rights was clarified sufficiently. As the ISRP understands from the response, the issue is not so much a matter of fully unclaimed rights but rights that were claimed by someone other than the Tribes, even though the Tribes had the legal right to claim them. In this world of claims generally exceeding the amount of water available, it seemed unlikely that any water would have been unclaimed (by somebody). The proposal seems to be a reassertion of water rights that the Tribes should have claimed based on the 1872 treaty.

The timelines are appropriate for a project that is somewhat exploratory. The first year's results will necessarily set the tone for the subsequent years, which will include as much implementation as can reasonably be initiated. Most implementation will be transfer of rights to the trust account.

The implementation objectives are logical. It appears that physical movement of water between basins is unlikely to occur in the 3 years of this funding, but is not ruled out if opportune.

The ISRP remains concerned that the monitoring does not extend from physical monitoring to biological monitoring (but this should not prevent funding). The water quality monitoring is fine. We are still not sure how the benefits to fish will be quantified, although we agree that improved flow, water quality, and instream habitat should lead to more fish. Regional approaches to establishing effectiveness for fish should be sought.

There are overlaps with proposal 29032 that are discussed under that project. The responses clarified both differences and similarities between the projects. Consideration should be given to combining these proposals, with the 1872 water rights investigation perhaps being considered a task for proposal 29032.

Comment:

Comments
Proposal is for an initial assessment of existing water rights and evaluation of the benefit of converting water rights to instream flows. It provides a beneficial opportunity to link water transfers to recovery efforts. No water appears to be purchased through this project.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

Comment: