Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Acquire 1860 Fifteenmile Cr irrigation water right and convert to instream |
| Proposal ID | 9087 |
| Organization | Oregon Water Trust (OWT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Leslie Bach |
| Mailing address | 111 SW Front Ave., Suite 404 Portland, OR 97204 |
| Phone / email | 5032269055 / owt@teleport.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 1999 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Mid-Columbia / Fifteenmile |
| Short description | Increase instream flows in a water quantity and quality limited system by purchasing a senior water right and transferring to a legally protected instream water right. Monitor and protect instream water right … |
| Target species | Winter Steelhead |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 1999 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 1999 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
|
$2,500 |
| Fringe |
|
$100 |
| Supplies |
|
$100 |
| Capital |
|
$15,000 |
| Travel |
|
$500 |
| Indirect |
|
$480 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$500 |
| Other |
|
$450 |
| $19,630 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 1999 cost | $19,630 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 1999 budget request | $19,630 |
| FY 1999 forecast from 1998 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Return to Sponsor for Revision
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Management Issue: Project is technically sound, but there are concerns on the cost. Need to clearly show the significance of the benefit – does 0.25 cfs benefit the watershed, and/or other programs that are being considered? How much relative benefit is added to the creek (0.25 cfs out of how much flow in the creek?).Management Issue: Explain if other alternatives, such as purchasing the land, would provide more benefits to the resource at a lower cost.
Technical Issue: Also, describe why the water would not be returned to the creek if native grasses are reestablished.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
May 13, 1998
Comment:
Recommendation:
Adequate
Date:
Jun 18, 1998
Comment:
This proposal is well written and includes an adequate description of tasks and objectives. It describes an opportunity to purchase a water right and use it to increase in-stream flow. Monitoring and legal protection for the water is included in the proposal. The "ecological monitoring" needs more development. The amount of water that will be saved is small and may be insignificant in terms of salmon recovery. It would help to know how much in-stream flow is needed for recovery. Will monitoring establish this?