FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 25076

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

Reason for change in estimated budget

N/A

Reason for change in scope

N/A

Cost sharing

Other budget explanation

Note that our proposed budget includes a combination of grants and loans as further explained in our narrative document.

Reviews and recommendations

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

Comment:

Fundable if adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns. This is an interesting proposal that deserves some attention by the Council. The proposal is to replace some existing lowland crops with poplars (hybrid cottonwood trees) as a cash crop. This is a novel proposal for an alternative irrigated agriculture product (trees for high-quality wood) that saves water for streams and incorporates a requirement for riparian improvements. Project personnel also propose to grow and plant native trees and shrubs to enhance vegetation in stream corridors.

From a fisheries enhancement perspective, a response that details the specific methods (and projected benefits) to be used in the stream corridor is needed. The reviewers had several questions in regard to the proposals potential benefits that the response should address: How much water will be saved? What do the water use records from other cottonwood plantations in the basin indicate? Are there long-term guarantees that the riparian improvement will remain in place?

The project seems technical feasible, but it requires a large amount of cash (both grant and loan) to be initiated. Partners in the project (farmers) seemed keen, and there were several other opportunities in this area of 90% agricultural use along the stream, and where 80% of the water is in irrigation (this project reduces that usage).

The pilot experiments, including 1000 acres, have generated further enthusiasm by the proponent for this work. Again, however, we see little in the way of evaluation of the fish response (describe how this will be done), yet suspect the results may be dramatic and provide a very useful demonstration of this, and the economic benefits. The effective riparian restoration methods are potentially the most attractive components, but the additional temperature benefit from the poplar plantation is also important.

Some support for further expansion onto other properties seems justified, particularly if an evaluation and demonstration project is included, and should not require the large sum indicated; a set of alternative funding levels that might be more acceptable. An economic review and analysis is essential - this is a large budget, seeking a grant and a large revolving loan program. The proponents should provide further detail of the economic analysis, which then should receive independent economic review.

Comment:

The pilot experiments, including 1000 acres, have generated further enthusiasm by the proponent for this work. We suspect the results may be dramatic and provide a very useful demonstration of riparian, stream, and economic benefits. The riparian restoration methods are potentially the most attractive components, but the additional temperature benefit from the poplar plantation is also important.

Project sponsors provided detailed responses including alternatives to full funding. However, the response to fish monitoring was inadequate in that it seemed to shuffle the responsibility off to fish agencies. The project could sub-contract the measurement of the fish response on a reach-by-reach or preferably, whole stream treatment and control approach, including a staircase experimental design. The (likely positive) fish response could be a key selling point to this approach, towards more willing and enthusiastic farmers. Independent economic analysis still is recommended.

Comment:

Comments
Project leaves many questions unanswered. Cannot predict whether pulp prices will remain high enough to keep upland portion of project viable. Purported benefits to stream temps may be very optimistic relative to current literature. Very high costs relative to fish benefits. Consider more specific proposal at smaller scale.

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? yes

Comment:

Comment: