FY 2007 Solicitation Homepage

Project Proposal Request for FY 2007 - FY 2009 Funding

Proposal 200733000: Gardena Farms Irrigation District Irrigation Efficiency and Instream Flow Project

Download this document in MS Word format
Open this document in PDF format

Table of Contents
Part 1. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative
Section 2: Project Location
Section 3: Project Species
Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Section 5: Relationship to Other Projects
Section 6: Biological Objectives
Section 7: Work Elements
Section 8: Budget
Section 9: Project Future
Section 10: Documents
Part 2. Reviews
Part 1 of 2. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Process Information:
Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized Status Form Generator
January 10, 2006 Finalized Stuart Durfee

Proposal Type: New
Proposal Number: 200733000
Proposal Name: Gardena Farms Irrigation District Irrigation Efficiency and Instream Flow Project
Agency, Institution or Organization: Gardena Farms Irrigation Distirct
Short Description: The purpose of this proposal is to place open channel irrigation deliveries in closed pipe and return the savings to the Walla Walla River as instream flow. Conserved water would be returned to the Walla Walla River at the Gardena Farms diversion.
Information Transfer: Project infomration will be reported to Bonneville Power Administration through required means to be determined if funded.
 
Project Proposal Contacts
Contact Organization Address Phone/Email Roles Notes
Form Submitter
Stuart Durfee Gardena Farms Irrigation District No. 13 539 White Road
Touchet, WA 99360
Ph: 509-394-2331
Fax: 509-394-2983
Email: sdurfee@pocketinet.com
Form Submitter
All Assigned Contacts
Stuart Durfee Gardena Farms Irrigation District No. 13 539 White Road
Touchet, WA 99360
Ph: 509-394-2331
Fax: 509-394-2983
Email: sdurfee@pocketinet.com
Administrative Contact
Project Lead
Technical Contact

Section 2: Project Location
Sponsor Province: Columbia Plateau ARG Province: No Change
Sponsor Subbasin: Walla Walla ARG Subbasin: No Change
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Waterbody Location Description County/State Subbasin Primary?
, Washington Walla Walla No

Section 3: Focal Species
Focal Species:
Primary Secondary Additional Species
Chinook Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Steelhead Middle Columbia River ESU
Bull Trout

Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project This proposal is for funding a new project, and has no past accomplishments.

Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects
Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source)
Funding Source Related ID Related Project Title Relationship
BPA 200107500 Enhance Walla Walla Basin Flow This proposal would replace open-channel conveyance system with pipe as did 200107500.

Section 6: Biological Objectives
Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project
Biological Objective Full Description Associated Subbasin Plan Strategy Page Nos
Instream Flow Increase in summer flow will increase the survival of steelhead in the following life stages: yearling rearing, age-2 rearing. Spring chinook will increase in the following life stages:fry, pre-spawning. Walla Walla Stategy MC3.1.11 Strategy MC7.1.13 134, 155, 160

Section 7: Work Elements
Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives
Work Element Name Work Element Title Description Start Date End Date Estimated Budget
Manage and Administer Projects Manage and Administer Irrigation Efficiency and Instream Flow Project Gardena Farms Irrigation District would perform project management and administration. 10/1/2007 9/30/2009 $40,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Instream Flow
No Metrics for this Work Element

Manage and Administer Projects Provide Final Report to BPA Gardena Farms Irrigation District will provide final report to BPA. 7/31/2009 10/31/2009 $1,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Instream Flow
No Metrics for this Work Element

Manage and Administer Projects Provide Status Reports to BPA Gardena Farms Irrigation District will provide status reports as required by BPA. 10/1/2007 9/30/2009 $2,500
Biological Objectives Metrics
Instream Flow
No Metrics for this Work Element

Install Pipeline Replace Open-channel Canal with Closed Pipe Gardena Farms Irrigation District would replace approximately 29,000 feet of open-channel delivery, reconfigure pumping stations and replace outdated or inadequate piped supply. The goal of this project is to return approximately 4.5 to 5 cubic feet per second in the Walla Walla River at the Gardena diversion. 10/1/2007 9/30/2009 $1,040,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Instream Flow
No Metrics for this Work Element

Develop and Negotiate Water Right Transaction Place Conserved Water in Trust Gardena Farms Irrigation District will work with Washington Department of Ecology to place conserved water in trust. 10/1/2007 9/30/2009 $3,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Instream Flow
No Metrics for this Work Element


Section 8: Budget

Itemized Estimated Budget
Item Note FY 2007 Cost FY 2008 Cost FY 2009 Cost
Personnel project management - includes fringe benefits $15,750 $15,750 $17,000
Supplies pipe, turnouts, pumpstations $299,334 $299,333 $299,333
Other pipe placement, backfill, labor $47,000 $47,000 $46,000
Totals $362,084 $362,083 $362,333

Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets
Total Itemized Budget$1,086,500
Total Work Element budget$1,086,500

Cost sharing
Funding Source or Organization Item or Service Provided FY 2007 Est Value ($) FY 2008 Est Value ($) FY 2009 Est Value ($) Cash or in-kind? Status

Section 9: Project Future
Project Future Costs and/or Termination
FY 2010 Est Budget FY 2011 Est Budget Comments
$ 0 $ 0
Future Operations & Maintenance Costs
 
Termination Date Comments
 
Final Deliverables

Section 10: Narrative
Document Type Size Date

Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results
Account Type:
Expense
Location:
Province: No Change
Subbasin: No Change
Primary Focal Species
No Change
ARG Comments:


BPA's in lieu Funding Review of new project proposals (August 3, 2006) [Download letter and table]

BPA's in lieu Rating: 1.0
Approx. BPA share of total costs: BPA 100%
Status of Cost Share:
Notes: Close piping of irrigation (assuming irrigators not required to do)


NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 Budget
$ 0
FY 2008 Budget
$1,086,500
FY 2009 Budget
$ 0
Total NPCC Rec
$1,086,500
Budget Type:Capital
Budget Category:ProvinceCapital
Recommendation:Fund
Comments: Combine the Walla Walla Juvenile and Adult passage Improvement project (199601100) with Gardena Irrigation Project and Walla Walla Flow. Capital component. No expense funds should be needed.


NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 Budget
$ 0
FY 2008 Budget
$ 0
FY 2009 Budget
$ 0
Total NPCC Rec
$ 0
Budget Type:Expense
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Recommendation:Fund with Capital
Comments: Combine the Walla Walla Juvenile and Adult passage Improvement project (199601100) with Gardena Irrigation Project and Walla Walla Flow. No expense funds needed for this project. See capital budget for the capital component.


NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 Budget
$362,000
FY 2008 Budget
$362,000
FY 2009 Budget
$362,000
Total NPCC Rec
$1,086,000
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Comments:
NPCC Staff Comments: WA recommendation is to fund as much as possible from capital, and any saved expense funds stays within the Walla Walla subbasin. Combine the Walla Walla Juvenile and Adult passage Improvement project (199601100) with Gardena Irrigation Project and Walla Walla Flow.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Final Review (August 31, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC Comments: The sponsors provided clear responses to ISRP questions. They made heavy use of habitat models (EDT, PHABSIM) to forecast benefits from increased flow. This strategy permits development of a hypothesis regarding the benefits of the proposed action. The test of this hypothesis, and thus the science behind this project, awaits the availability of data to assess these predictions. This project could provide an opportunity to test the model results from EDT and PHABSIM. There is, at present, a leap of faith associated with the project. Additional flow in the affected reach may or may not be crucial for the target species. It would be, for example, if it were shown that production in this reach limits recruitment to the adult stages. It may be, however, that low survival in this reach is compensated by relatively high survival at some other location or life-history stage. If compensated, low survival in this reach would have no impact on recruitment to the adult stages. Ultimately, future expenditures in the basin and elsewhere for this kind of project will benefit from good M&E and reporting of results.

This proposal should be linked to the Columbia Basin Water Transaction Program (proposal #200201301) and address the criteria for water transactions under that program that are relevant to the proposed actions.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Preliminary Review (June 2, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Response requested
NPCC Comments: The sponsors need to provide a better justification for the project. The justification in the proposal is general, expressed in terms of how the project meets broad objectives of various plans. A justification specific to the project area needs to be given. Is the area an important fish production area? Is there critical habitat? How much relative flow increase will be achieved? The sponsors also need to provide some sort of estimate of the potential benefit to habitat and focal species. Does EDT or any other analysis show how much is water is needed to enhance fish populations and how the conserved flow from this project will contribute? Is the proposed project part of a larger plan or project to restore flow? Is this project a part of a concerted long-term effort to restore instream flows?

Technical and scientific background: The problem is relatively straightforward. The sponsors propose to install piping to convey irrigation water and the saved water from this more efficient practice would be used to enhance instream flows year round.

The sponsors need to provide an estimate of how much relative gain in flow will be achieved by the project. How much will fish habitat be enhanced by this flow increase and what life stages will be benefited? The proposal should include an estimate of what flows are needed to remove the threat to fish populations, attempt to show that the goal is possible and reasonable, and that this project helps to make a significant gain in meeting that goal.

The sponsors need to provide more background on the project area. Will flow be increased in a single stream or multiple streams? Is there evidence that reduced flows in this (these) specific reaches reduced fish production? A map clearly identifying the project area would be helpful.

Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The Walla Walla Subbasin Plan identifies dewatering and low flows as a limiting factor for fish. The proposal generally is consistent with Plan by providing improvement of instream flows.

Relationships to other projects: The project bears a direct relationship to one BPA funded project. Direct collaboration with this project was not discussed.

Objectives: The objective is straightforward. It is to provide increased instream flow using water saved by installing piping to convey irrigation water. Flows will be held in trust for salmon. In some sections of the proposal the amount of water added to instream flow is given as 1.4 cfs, but in the objectives the amount is 4-5 cfs. Which is it?

This proposal should be linked to the Columbia Basin Water Transaction Program (proposal 200201301) and address the criteria for water transactions under that program that are relevant to the proposed actions.

Tasks (work elements) and methods: The project is for construction.

Monitoring and evaluation: No provisions are made for M&E. The proposal needs a description of how flows (and the hydrograph) will be monitored and how the water "savings" will benefit steelhead and salmon populations.

Facilities, equipment, and personnel: Construction equipment and personnel will be secured through contract.

Information transfer will be planned, if the proposal is funded.

Benefits to focal and non-focal species: The project could be of benefit to multiple focal species. It is difficult to assess the benefits, however, because the sponsors provide little background information relating to project location, pre-project flows and habitat conditions, fish use of the specific area of the project, etc. Most of the justification for the project is in general terms. Non-focal species were not discussed. Non-focal species could benefit if increased flows were substantive enough to provide significant improvements.

Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.