FY 2000 proposal 20035

Additional documents

TitleType
20035 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleWater Right Acquisition Program (Multi-Year Fy 2000-2002)
Proposal ID20035
OrganizationOregon Water Trust (OWT)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameLeslie Bach
Mailing addressOWT, 111 SW Naito Parkway., Ste. 404 Portland, OR 97204
Phone / email5032269055 / info@owt.org
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / John Day
Short descriptionAcquire existing consumptive water rights from willing sellers and transfer to legally protected instream water rights to increase streamflows and restore salmonid habitat and water quality. Work with agencies to monitor and protect instream rights.
Target speciesWild spring chinook, summer and winter steelhead, redband trout, bull trout.
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
1994 4 water right acquisitions (statewide); total flow acquired 1.84 cfs; protected 3.8 river miles. [1 acquisition in Project subbasins.]
1995 10 water right acquisitions (statewide) total flow acquired 8.25-10.81 cfs protected 29.6 river miles. [3 acquisitions in Project subbasins.]
1996 25 water right acquisitions (statewide); total flow acquired 20.33-22.72 cfs; protected 254 river miles. [12 acquisitions in Project subbasins.]
1997 27 water right acquisitions (statewide); total flow acquired 19.70-21.30 cfs; protected 271 river miles. [11 acquisitions in Project subbasins.]
1998 31 water right acquisitions (statewide); total flow acquired 21.42-23.03 cfs; protected 288 river miles. [11 acquisitions in Project subbasins.]

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel $20,500
Fringe Estimated at %3.9 of Personnel Costs $800
Supplies $580
Operating $960
Capital Two-thirds of projected funds needed to complete acquisitions in FY 2000 $100,000
Travel Travel throughout subbasins related to acquiring and monitoring instream water rights $2,000
Indirect Overhead at 10% of $41,840 in Operational Costs $4,160
Subcontractor Certified Water Rights Examiners $1,000
$130,000
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$130,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$130,000
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
Oregon Water Resources Department Project identification, evaluation and monitoring by Watermasters and WRD staff $2,000 unknown
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Project idenitification, evaluation and monitoring by district fish biologists $2,000 unknown
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Bullitt Foundation and Compton Foundation Operation Funding $16,000 unknown
Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board Acquisition Funding $27,000 unknown
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Acquisition Funding $10,000 unknown
Local Governments Acquisition Funding $7,000 unknown
Portland General Electric Acquisition Funding $5,000 unknown
Private Donations Acquisition Funding $1,000 unknown
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: The water right acquisition process depends on: 1) negotiating with the water right holder, and 2) obtaining approval from the Oregon Water Resources Department for transfer to instream use. Time required varies with each acquisition.


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Fund (high priority among new proposals).
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Fund (high priority among new proposals). Review next year to determine if there are actual increases in streamflow.

Comments: The rationale for this project was clearly defined and well justified. The proposal appears well worth funding, although it would have been helpful to project the percent increases in flow for each stream in which acquisitions have been targeted. The objectives were clearly laid out, but it was not clear how sure some of the negotiations for purchases were at this time. This uncertainty lessens the feasibility of this fairly unique proposal. Effectiveness is questionable if enforcement is not good, and the feasibility of that was not addressed. Also unclear were the permanency of these arrangements and, therefore the long-term impact of any expenditure. The monitoring component of the project is not adequately described. The proposal suggests that other agencies may provide biological monitoring, but the reviewers would like to see a monitoring program in place. Specifically, it was not clear how one person with a flow meter would be able to adequately monitor the amount of water at all the acquired sites, even with the assistance of state agencies, tribes, etc. It seems possible, but the particulars were not given in the proposal. Coordination with other agencies is identified as important, but the commitment of those agencies is unclear. Activities in the past in this area apparently moved forward without BPA funding; it was not entirely clear why BPA funding should now be directed here. Also unclear is what is currently being done (if anything), and by whom. Nevertheless, the proposal makes a convincing case for acquiring water rights in over-appropriated streams and long-term funding requirements appear minimal.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Criteria all: Met? yes -
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Split costs with NEOSWW. #2&3&7 p.16-17 lists plans.#5 big cost share #6 small ongoing cost of monitoring instream flows with commitment of Non-BPA (ODFW). #12 water right does have legal protection past efforts have been successful when purchased.
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Good proposal.

One drawback is current lack of landowner support.

Good example of cost-sharing.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting]