FY 2000 proposal 20070

Additional documents

TitleType
20070 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleWater Conservation and Stream Enhancement Project
Proposal ID20070
OrganizationTumalo Irrigation District
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameKevin L. Crew/Karen Allen
Mailing address709 NW Wall Street, Suite 102 Bend, OR 97701-2744
Phone / email5413897614 / klcr@deainc.com
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / Deschutes
Short descriptionEnhance 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 speciesRedband (rainbow) trout, mountain whitefish
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
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 IDTitleDescription
9040 Central Oregon Watershed Enhancement and Outreach complementary goals/potential for collaborative efforts

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 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 forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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.

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.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


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.


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.


Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

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