FY 2000 proposal 20089

Additional documents

TitleType
20089 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleIncrease Instream Water Rights for Crabtree Creek
Proposal ID20089
OrganizationSouth Santiam Watershed Council (SSWC)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameSusan Gries
Mailing address33630 McFarland Road Tangent, OR 97389
Phone / email5419675927 / gries@peak.org
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinLower Columbia / Willamette
Short descriptionPipe 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 speciesUpper Willamette ESU winter steelhead
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

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 $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 forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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];