FY07-09 proposal 200731600

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Deschutes

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs: The Three Sisters Irrigation District will be responsible for ongoing O&M costs associated with the McKenzie Canyon Pipeline The Upper Deschutes Watershed Council will conduct monitoring activities on the riparian restoration component of the project to evaluate overall sucess.

Termination date: 12/30/2009
Comments: All project activities will be complete by the close of the 2009 calendar year.

Final deliverables: *2037 Acre-Feet (4.8 cfs) protected permanently protected in Squaw Creek from piping. *23.5 miles of instream habitat improvement in Squaw Creek *2 cfs resulting from on-farm conservation efforts *2 miles of riparian restoration

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable

NPCC comments: This is a well-written proposal, tight, detailed, supported with numbers and credible references. Wildlife and (named!) weeds are addressed and local land use pressures and ecological trends are recognized along with socio-economic elements. Identifies the major habitat-related problems within the Squaw Creek basin, including lack of adequate stream flows for fish. Historically, Squaw Creek was a major spawning and rearing area for steelhead and today supports a viable population of redband trout. Increased flows in Squaw Creek could be of particular significance as efforts to reintroduce steelhead above the dam complex continue. The sponsors need to better justify, in as specific terms as possible, the extent to which the flow increases will improve habitat conditions. Will the proposed flow increase make a significant, or even noticeable, difference to fish, especially in the lower reaches? What reaches will be most affected by the flow increase? What would be the estimated improvement in habitat (e.g., spawning areas or spawning habitat)? Where would the major increase occur and how much? Would new areas be open to spawning and how much? How would juvenile habitat be improved and where would the greatest improvement occur? In the areas where flow would be increased, is the physical habitat otherwise in good condition? The sponsors state that the flow increase represents 25% of the ODFW minimum flow request. At what location in the basin does this estimate pertain? Greater flow augmentation would make this project more appealing. Beyond focal species, the proposal did not note impacts on species adapted to ditches, such as nesting birds or amphibians, but did suggest vegetation salvage, an interesting, but not likely successful effort to reduce impact on non-focal species. It was nice to see terrestrial species being considered. The sponsors use the subbasin plan to justify the proposed project as part of a larger, ongoing regional effort. The first phase has been funded by numerous agencies and NGO’s. It is related to other streamflow restoration projects in the Deschutes Basin. In this water stressed, rapidly developing region, getting agricultural interests to put half the water saved into conservation rather than reducing over-allocation is a remarkable achievement. The work appears well organized and quite low-cost compared to many projects with less definable deliverables. The sponsors have extensive experience, and obvious cooperation with other agencies. Information transfer is not included, but should be. This model deserves more attention, and data should result, both technical and economic, that would be useful. The project needs plans for M&E to determine whether the flow increases have been achieved and what impact they have on habitat and fish. Implementation and effectiveness monitoring for this project could be part of the larger M&E program for the Deschutes Basin, but the sponsors need to assure that the larger program expressly addresses their project objectives.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable

NPCC comments: This is a well-written proposal, tight, detailed, supported with numbers and credible references. Wildlife and (named!) weeds are addressed and local land use pressures and ecological trends are recognized along with socio-economic elements. Identifies the major habitat-related problems within the Squaw Creek basin, including lack of adequate stream flows for fish. Historically, Squaw Creek was a major spawning and rearing area for steelhead and today supports a viable population of redband trout. Increased flows in Squaw Creek could be of particular significance as efforts to reintroduce steelhead above the dam complex continue. The sponsors need to better justify, in as specific terms as possible, the extent to which the flow increases will improve habitat conditions. Will the proposed flow increase make a significant, or even noticeable, difference to fish, especially in the lower reaches? What reaches will be most affected by the flow increase? What would be the estimated improvement in habitat (e.g., spawning areas or spawning habitat)? Where would the major increase occur and how much? Would new areas be open to spawning and how much? How would juvenile habitat be improved and where would the greatest improvement occur? In the areas where flow would be increased, is the physical habitat otherwise in good condition? The sponsors state that the flow increase represents 25% of the ODFW minimum flow request. At what location in the basin does this estimate pertain? Greater flow augmentation would make this project more appealing. Beyond focal species, the proposal did not note impacts on species adapted to ditches, such as nesting birds or amphibians, but did suggest vegetation salvage, an interesting, but not likely successful effort to reduce impact on non-focal species. It was nice to see terrestrial species being considered. The sponsors use the subbasin plan to justify the proposed project as part of a larger, ongoing regional effort. The first phase has been funded by numerous agencies and NGO’s. It is related to other streamflow restoration projects in the Deschutes Basin. In this water stressed, rapidly developing region, getting agricultural interests to put half the water saved into conservation rather than reducing over-allocation is a remarkable achievement. The work appears well organized and quite low-cost compared to many projects with less definable deliverables. The sponsors have extensive experience, and obvious cooperation with other agencies. Information transfer is not included, but should be. This model deserves more attention, and data should result, both technical and economic, that would be useful. The project needs plans for M&E to determine whether the flow increases have been achieved and what impact they have on habitat and fish. Implementation and effectiveness monitoring for this project could be part of the larger M&E program for the Deschutes Basin, but the sponsors need to assure that the larger program expressly addresses their project objectives.