FY 2000 proposal 20070
Contents
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 / klcr@deainc.com |
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.
Comment:
Recommendation: Do not fundComments: 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.
Comment:
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.
Technically Sound? No
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.
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];