FY07-09 proposal 200728600
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Deschutes Cooperative Stream Flow Restoration |
| Proposal ID | 200728600 |
| Organization | Deschutes Soil and Water Conservation District |
| Short description | Restoration of stream flows in the Deschutes basin above the Pelton Round Butte complex to sustain the successful reintroduction of anadromous fish. Flows to be restored through development of cooperative irrigation water management projects in the basin. |
| Information transfer | Quarterly reporting and transfer of information to all participating project partners; general media dissemination of accomplishments; as well as District website distribution, links with partners, etc.; publishing of an annual report listing project partners, costs, and accomplishments throughout the project. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Jeff Rola | Deschutes Soil and Water Conservation District | jeff.rola@or.nacdnet.net |
| All assigned contacts | ||
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Deschutes
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deschutes | Deschutes River and tributaries above the Pelton Round Butte dams. |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Steelhead Middle Columbia River ESUsecondary: Chinook Deschutes River Summer/Fall ESU
secondary: Bull Trout
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCSRF - OWEB | 204-173 | Watershed Stewardship (WSEP) | Builds on the quantity of water saved through on-farm water conservation savings |
| BPA | 199908800 | Water Right Acquisition Progra | Coordinate Conserved Water Applications through NFWF Water Transactions program. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| SubBasin Plan Supplement C.1.1.3. | Restore Summer Steelhead and Spring Chinook throughout historic range. | Deschutes | Reduce extreme streamflow fluctuations caused by artificial water withdrawals. Stream flow is one of the basic elements needed for the development of healthy, productive ecosystems. . . . |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coordination | Coordinating Community Consensus | Coordinating community consensus and approval of projects designed to enhance stream flows through voluntary conservation of irrigation water. | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $100,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Manage and Administer Projects | Coordinating Project Development | Coordinating project development among conservation partners and leveraging resources to maximize conservation benefits for those projects. | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $100,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Provide Technical Review | Technical Assistance | Provide technical assistance to assist in project success | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $100,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Monitoring Project Accomplishments | Monitoring project accomplishmsnts and disseminating achievements made possible through this BPA funding opportunity. | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $50,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Acquire Water Instream | Aggregating Water Savings | Aggregating the savings of individual water users and system improvements to compound conservation benefits and increas stream flows | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $100,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | 1.0 FTE project coordinator | $42,000 | $42,000 | $42,000 |
| Fringe Benefits | Taxes, SSI and Insurance | $8,000 | $8,000 | $8,000 |
| Other | Contracted Development/Technical Services | $60,000 | $40,000 | $30,000 |
| Supplies | to facilitate project feasibility | $30,000 | $50,000 | $60,000 |
| Overhead | Fiscal admin & management | $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 |
| Totals | $150,000 | $150,000 | $150,000 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $450,000 |
| Total work element budget: | $450,000 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bureau of Reclamation | McKenzie Pipeline | $150,000 | $150,000 | $150,000 | Cash | Confirmed |
| Central Oregon Irrigation Districts | Deschutes Water Alliance on farm conservation | $15,000 | $15,000 | $15,000 | Cash | Under Development |
| Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board | Watershed Restoration Grant, McKenzie Pipeline | $150,000 | $150,000 | $150,000 | Cash | Confirmed |
| Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board | Small Grant Program | $25,000 | $25,000 | $25,000 | Cash | Under Development |
| Participating landowners | Cost share matching all programs | $1,500,000 | $1,500,000 | $1,500,000 | In-Kind | Under Development |
| USDA-NRCS | Environmental Quality Incentive Program | $150,000 | $150,000 | $150,000 | Cash | Confirmed |
| USDA-NRCS | Watershed Protection Program | $65,000 | $65,000 | $65,000 | Cash | Confirmed |
| USDA-NRCS | PL 566 Emergency Watershed Protection | $1,200,000 | $2,000,000 | $2,000,000 | Cash | Under Review |
| Totals | $3,255,000 | $4,055,000 | $4,055,000 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $350,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $350,000 |
Comments: With successful implementation of voluntary conservation projects, additional projects may not require BPA contributions but be funded through leveraged consensus driven partnerships. |
Future O&M costs: Operations and Maintenance of projects is borne by participating landowners and irrigation districts.
Termination date: 12/31/2009
Comments: The value of this project is to provide a template, based on community consensus and priority resource concerns, for timely implementation of conservation projects. Successful outcomes from this project will keep salmon and steelhead recovery work moving forward in the Columbia Basin, and out of the courts.
Final deliverables: 1. A coordinated and effective salmon and steelhead recovery effort in the Deschutes Basin. 2. Successfully developed irrigation water conservation projects that result in at least 10 CFS of conserved water secured in stream. 3. Successful spawning and return of wild Summer Steelhead and Spring Chinook in the Deschutes River and its tributaries above the Pelton/Round Butte Dam complex.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Do Not Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: Implementing water conservation projects is likely to be beneficial, as demonstrated by instream flow increases resulting from previous improvements in irrigation efficiency. However, this proposal lacks detail to explain how it will be done, how the project links to others, why the Deschutes SWCD is the logical entity to coordinate implementation, and how effectiveness monitoring would be conducted. The proposal states “Nothing succeeds like success.” However, success in restoration is only achieved if positive impacts of flow augmentation on habitat conditions and fish populations can be demonstrated. Review concerns specific to individual proposal components are identified below: Technical and scientific background: This section is missing a discussion of the magnitude of the problem of dewatered streams and how it relates to the limiting factors and restoration priorities identified in the Deschutes Subbasin Plan. Information on the utility of irrigation improvements for the increase in in-stream cfs (presented in the objectives section) should be included in this section. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: This section presents relevant but minimal information. The proposed work is generally consistent with the Deschutes Subbasin Plan and the Pelton-Round Butte re-licensing agreement; however, is not specifically linked to the Deschutes Subbasin Plan limiting factors and priorities, the BiOp, the Fish and Wildlife Program, or the OR Plan. Relationships to other projects: The proposal is related to several similarly oriented projects whose essence is collaboration with landowners and agencies. However, the proposal contains only minimal detail on the relationship to other SWCD projects in the area. Only passing mention is made to the Deschutes water transactions program, another program working toward increased stream flows. The need to discuss the water transactions program is further strengthened by the proposal's assertion in the objectives section that cooperation has an advantage over "market-based" approaches for increasing stream flows. The basis for this statement should be made clear. Objectives: The sponsors have proposed a number of very worthwhile activities, activities that they have successfully been engaged in for some time. The sponsors have already secured considerable funding for their projects. The principle question for this review is what, specifically, will BPA funding add to their program. Objectives should be constructed to address this question. Objectives are not specified in measurable form and little detail is presented as to how the objectives will be accomplished. A lot of the material presented in this section is justification that would more reasonably be put in the background or rationale section. Tasks (work elements) and methods: Methods are described generally, with the sponsors primarily recounting past projects. Very little information is provided as to how the objectives will be accomplished and measured. Monitoring and evaluation: The sponsors speak of a monitoring effort but do not provide details except for "periodic ground truthing." More information is needed. It would be useful for the Deschutes SWCD to collaborate with a larger scale monitoring effort so that it will be possible to ascertain whether the flow increases achieved by conservation practices have improved habitat conditions and fish populations.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: Implementing water conservation projects is likely to be beneficial, as demonstrated by instream flow increases resulting from previous improvements in irrigation efficiency. However, this proposal lacks detail to explain how it will be done, how the project links to others, why the Deschutes SWCD is the logical entity to coordinate implementation, and how effectiveness monitoring would be conducted. The proposal states “Nothing succeeds like success.” However, success in restoration is only achieved if positive impacts of flow augmentation on habitat conditions and fish populations can be demonstrated. Review concerns specific to individual proposal components are identified below: Technical and scientific background: This section is missing a discussion of the magnitude of the problem of dewatered streams and how it relates to the limiting factors and restoration priorities identified in the Deschutes Subbasin Plan. Information on the utility of irrigation improvements for the increase in in-stream cfs (presented in the objectives section) should be included in this section. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: This section presents relevant but minimal information. The proposed work is generally consistent with the Deschutes Subbasin Plan and the Pelton-Round Butte re-licensing agreement; however, is not specifically linked to the Deschutes Subbasin Plan limiting factors and priorities, the BiOp, the Fish and Wildlife Program, or the OR Plan. Relationships to other projects: The proposal is related to several similarly oriented projects whose essence is collaboration with landowners and agencies. However, the proposal contains only minimal detail on the relationship to other SWCD projects in the area. Only passing mention is made to the Deschutes water transactions program, another program working toward increased stream flows. The need to discuss the water transactions program is further strengthened by the proposal's assertion in the objectives section that cooperation has an advantage over "market-based" approaches for increasing stream flows. The basis for this statement should be made clear. Objectives: The sponsors have proposed a number of very worthwhile activities, activities that they have successfully been engaged in for some time. The sponsors have already secured considerable funding for their projects. The principle question for this review is what, specifically, will BPA funding add to their program. Objectives should be constructed to address this question. Objectives are not specified in measurable form and little detail is presented as to how the objectives will be accomplished. A lot of the material presented in this section is justification that would more reasonably be put in the background or rationale section. Tasks (work elements) and methods: Methods are described generally, with the sponsors primarily recounting past projects. Very little information is provided as to how the objectives will be accomplished and measured. Monitoring and evaluation: The sponsors speak of a monitoring effort but do not provide details except for "periodic ground truthing." More information is needed. It would be useful for the Deschutes SWCD to collaborate with a larger scale monitoring effort so that it will be possible to ascertain whether the flow increases achieved by conservation practices have improved habitat conditions and fish populations.