FY 2000 proposal 20089
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Increase Instream Water Rights for Crabtree Creek |
| Proposal ID | 20089 |
| Organization | South Santiam Watershed Council (SSWC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Susan Gries |
| Mailing address | 33630 McFarland Road Tangent, OR 97389 |
| Phone / email | 5419675927 / gries@peak.org |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Willamette |
| Short description | Pipe 3 miles of the Lacomb Irrigation Ditch in order to conserve 76% of the water and allocate 75% of conserved water to instream Crabtree Creek uses |
| Target species | Upper Willamette ESU 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
|
$0 |
| Fringe |
|
$0 |
| Supplies |
|
$656,800 |
| Indirect |
Project Management and Coordination 8% of BPA request |
$107,616 |
| Other |
Permits, Landrights, etc. |
$100,000 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$538,400 |
| $1,402,816 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $1,402,816 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $1,402,816 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| Lacomb Irrigation District |
Appurtenances |
$30,000 |
unknown |
| Lacomb Irrigation District |
Excavation |
$10,000 |
unknown |
| Lacomb Irrigation District |
Cost of piping (cash) |
$50,000 |
unknown |
| South Santiam Watershed Council |
Temperature Monitoring |
$3,430 |
unknown |
| USFS |
NEPA |
$1,800 |
unknown |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do not fund. The proposal is technically inadequate.
Comments:
This may well be a deserving proposal, but too few data are provided to evaluate. It seeks $1.4 million for uncertain benefits. The proposal does not offer adequate supporting figures representing present or projected anadromous fish populations or spawning numbers. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife data, with projections of expected benefits, would be helpful. But the proposal offers little evidence to assure success.
Specific comments and questions that should also be addressed are:
It is unclear how many miles of stream or area would be affected by the increased water supply, and the proposal offers insufficient guarantee that this measure of water would remain in the stream. Other obstacles may exist to successful production of native steelhead, but there is little evidence to establish or disprove that possibility. How will project managers measure the success of the project, if implemented? What physical facilities exist, if any, at the intake to the irrigation ditch? What impact do they have, if any, on fish passage? What volume of water 'lost' from the ditch returns to the stream through groundwater flow? Does the Watershed Assessment Plan identify any other significant problems in the affected reach of Crabtree Creek? Is piping the most cost-effective solution? Would ditch-lining achieve the same result, at less cost?
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Questioned amount of water saved going to the irrigation district (proposee). Cost is high and unsure benefits. Temp problems appear to be severe, but only addressed incrementally. Hydro project creating the problem. Question whether BPA's responsibility. Proposal lacks detail on many aspects. #1- ID supports. Unclear about any others. #2-No info provided. #3- No info. #4-Low flows and high temps will remain even with project, incremental benefits but not enough to meet full needs of Steelhead. #5-but only slight. #8-Intent of proposal is a 60 inch pipe. #9-Already connected.
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Project costs are high (as are most water conservation projects), but this is a relatively good value for the amount of water that will be acquired.This proposal creates an in-stream water right.
What is the condition of the habitat? Proposal does not demonstrate that the habitat problems in Crabtree Creek will be addressed. Is this stretch of Crabtree Creek currently being used for salmonid rearing?
Is the water right fully protected from the point of diversion at river mile 30 to the mouth of Crabtree Creek? Have there been discussions with the State to ensure that they will protect it?
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];