FY 2000 proposal 20070

Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary

Reviews and Recommendations

Additional documents

Title	Type
20070 Narrative	Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Water Conservation and Stream Enhancement Project
Proposal ID	20070
Organization	Tumalo Irrigation District
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Kevin L. Crew/Karen Allen
Mailing address	709 NW Wall Street, Suite 102 Bend, OR 97701-2744
Phone / email	5413897614 / [email protected]
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycle	FY 2000
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Plateau / Deschutes
Short description	Enhance in-stream flows to improve fish and riparian habitat in the Middle Deschutes River and Tumalo Creek by constructing pipeline systems to replace existing leaky irrigation canals which also pose a higher public safety risk.
Target species	Redband (rainbow) trout, mountain whitefish

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
1997	Piped 3,200 feet of the Tumalo Feed Canal, reducing losses by an estimated 20 CFS. The project also enhanced flows in Tumalo Creek for approximately 9 miles by relocating the diversion of irrigation waters downstream.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
9040	Central Oregon Watershed Enhancement and Outreach	complementary goals/potential for collaborative efforts

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	Engineering/Legal/Administration	$2,030,000
Fringe		$0
Supplies		$0
Construction		$16,352,000
		$18,382,000

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2000 cost	$18,382,000
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2000 budget request	$18,382,000
FY 2000 forecast from 1999	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
no identified sources		$0	unknown

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 99-2)

Recommendation:
Do not fund

Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Do not fund

Comments: This proposal does not adequately demonstrate that there will be benefits to fish and wildlife. It is unclear how this proposal fits into the overall program. The need for this project, as described, is that some water users object to the reallocation/purchase of water rights to in-stream uses. At $18.3 million, this project is very expensive and the reviewers could not find the rationale for spending this much money (actually $26.2 million total project cost) for saving 74 cfs of water versus, e.g., drilling wells and replacing river diversions with groundwater. Also, there was no attempt to estimate quantitatively the biological benefit of this water savings, which made it even more difficult to figure the cost-benefit ratio. How do we know that modernizing the water delivery system will actually reduce the volume of water appropriated from the river? The benefits of the proposal relative to the costs is not addressed, especially relative to the purchase of in-stream uses. Compared to the purchase of instream water rights in other proposals (e.g. 20035) this is not cost effective. Long-term maintenance is not addressed. The builders have not yet been identified, but the engineers have been. There is no construction schedule or provision for delays.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Resident Fish Review Comments

Recommendation:

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Screening Criteria: no-It is not in the Council's program for Resident Fish and not a BPA responsibility to fix or maintain irrigation projects under 10.8b in the Resident fish program. There is no tie to hydro-related losses, and it is not a BPA responsibility to mitigate state water appropriations law. It doesn't meet criteria 1B. It is not consistent with management objectives.

Technical Criteria: no-There are no benefits to fish because it does not describe use of water saved.

Programmatic Criteria: no- It doesn't meet criteria 11-17, It does not describe use of water saved.

Milestone Criteria: no-There are no specific milestones listed.

General Comments: The cost of the project exceeds the RFM annual budget.

REVIEW:
CBFWA: Watershed Technical Group Comments

Recommendation:
Technically Sound? No

Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Proposal does not provide enough information to evaluate the water-right savings.

Proposal does not appear to be cost-effective.

The final disposition of the saved water is unclear. Will it become an in-stream water right?

Explain how this project fits into a watershed context.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation (NWPPC 2000-6)

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

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