Three Sisters Irrigation District Watson-McKenzie Main

Three Sisters Irrigation District Watson-McKenzie Main Canal Pipeline

Project Phases IV - VI In Concert with

TSIDNRCS AWEP on Farm Projects

DESCHUTES COUNTY OREGON

THREE SISTERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT 68000 HWY 20 W

P 0 Box 2230 SISTERS OR 97759

Office 541-549-8815 Fax 541-549-8070

Project Manager Marc Thalacker

January 16 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CoverPage ________________________________________________ 1-3

Assurances Form

Appendix E BudgetEquipment lnkind ampHourlyPipe amp Materials Spreadsheets_55-56

4-5

Title Page 6

Table of Contents 7

Technical Proposal 8-32

Budget Proposal 32-38

Budget Form 424C 39

Appendix A Project Maps 40-41

Appendix B AWEP On-Farm Spreadsheets amp Contract 42-52

Appendix C Letter amp Documents of Commitment 53

Appendix D Official Resolution 54

Appendix F Save Water Save Energy 57-66

Technical Proposal Executive Summary January 16 2011

Three Sisters Irrigation District Sisters Deschutes County Oregon

The project includes components that accomplish goals set out in Tasks A B C and D TSID is asking the Bureau ofReclamation for $500000 per year for 3 years to complete the 3 phases of this project (one phase per year)

Task A Water Conservation The project includes the replacement of an existing canal (identified as the Three Sisters Irrigation District Main Canal between Watson and McKenzie Reservoirs) with two side-by-side buried pipelines It provides irrigation water for approximately 120 rural landowners across approximately 5500 acres The project will pipe in three phases 14000 feet of open canal with one 42 high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe gravity fed from Watson Reservoir and one 54 48 and 42 HDPE pipe delivering pressurized water to the farms in the Upper District The on farm component of this project is being funded through the NRCS AWEP program and when complete will encompass over 100 on-farm projects in the Upper District Phases 4-6 of the Watson-McKenzie Main Canal Pipeline project will conserve between 1600 and 2100 acre feet in canal seepage loss annually

Task B Energy -Water Nexus With the completion of the second three phases ofthis project pressurized water will eliminate electrical pumps on farm that are using 2-3 million kwh of electricity The funding from the NRCS A WEP program allows the farms in the Upper District to pipe their private laterals which allows them to access the pressurized water from the pressurized pipeline These on farm projects are identified in TSIDs piping and conserved water assessment in its Agricultural Water Management and Conservation Plan (AWMampCP) which was created with assistance from BOR System Optimization Review grant Once all six phases (28000 feet) are piped the 42 gravity fed pipe will create the opportunity for the installation ofa 3MW Francis turbine at McKenzie Reservoir which will generate one million kwh annually

Task C Benefits to Endangered Species As each phase of the Main Canal Pipeline is completed it puts 1 cfs ofwater in Whychus Creek Phases 4-6 of the project will dedicate an additional flow of 3 cfs which will bring the total in-stream protected flow in Whychus Creek to over 28 cfs significantly surpassing Oregon Department ofFish amp Wildlife (ODFW) minimum in-stream flow target of20 cfs and approaching the target flow for the lower reaches of 33 cfs This conserved water will benefit Summer steelhead (Mid-Columbia ESU) in the Deschutes Basin which are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act Bull trout which are also listed as threatened occur within the lower 1-2 miles ofWhychus Creek which is part of the project area The bull trout within the project area are within the Lower Deschutes River subpopulation Lower Whychus Creek has been designated critical habitat for bull trout Bull trout use in Whychus Creek is mainly sub adult rearing and potentially spawning (USFWS 1998) Whychus Creek currently supports native redband trout mountain whitefish dace bridgelip suckers chiselmouth northern squawfish and sculpins Although these resident species play important roles in Whychus Creek restoration partners and restoration funders have coalesced around anadromous reintroduction of Steelhead and Salmon to Whychus Creek while simultaneously improving conditions for native resident trout USFS considers redband trout a sensitive species Steelhead Chinook and Sockeye could be brought above the Round Butte-Pelton complex as early as 2015 These additional flows in Whychus Creek will help make the Anadromous reintroduction as success

Task D Water Marketing TSID is working with DRC to market and certificate the 3 cfs from these 3 phases

8

of the 9-phase project (approximately 1250 acre feet annually) into a water right held by the State of Oregon that will protect flows for fish and water quality in Whychus Creek

Technical Proposal Background Data Provide a map of the area showing the geographic location (include the State county and direction from nearest town) As applicable describe the source of water supply the water rights involved current water uses (ie agricultural municipal domestic or industrial) the number of water users served and the current and projected water demand Also identify potential shortfalls in water supply Ifwater is primarily used for irrigation describe major crops and total acres served In addition describe the applicants water delivery system as appropriate For agricultural systems please include the miles of canals miles of laterals and existing irrigation improvements (ie type miles and acres) For municipal systems please include the number of connections andor number of water users served and any other relevant information describing the system If the application includes renewable energy or energy efficiency elements describe existing energy sources and current energy uses

See attached maps in Appendix

Three Sisters Irrigation District is generally described as running in a northeasterly direction from Whychus Creek (a tributary of the Deschutes River) through the Cloverdale area and down McKenzie Canyon to the Lower Bridge area The office is located 4 miles east of the city of Sisters on Highway 20 TSID serves farm land in both Deschutes County and Jefferson County 20 miles northwest ofRedmond in the Upper Deschutes River Basin

The source ofwater comes from Whychus Creek a tributary of the Deschutes River TSID carries the water right certificates on over 8000 acres of water rights The Main Canal Pipeline Project serves 8000 acres and 175 farmers that use the water for agricultural applications Due to the nature of the climate in Central Oregon we are continuously looking for ways to stretch the water that is available Piping will not only conserve a considerable amount for fish reintroduction but also serve the farmers by giving them more water

If water is primarily used for irrigation describe major crops total acres served

On 53 of the cropland alfalfa or grass hay is grown 25 is pasture and 22 is used to produce specialty crops such as carrot seed grass seed radish seed sugar beet seed and grains The total irrigated acreage served in the project area is 8000 acres

Prior to 2010 the majority of175 TSID water users have electric surface pumps that pump from delivery ponds or directly from the canals Flood irrigation only occurs on 5-6 properties in the District irrigating less than 400 acres by flood application May of2010 the McKenzie Pipeline project went live and started delivering pressurized water to 2000 acres in Lower Bridge eliminating 38 pumps conserving almost 3000000 kwh per year Because the way Central Electric Coop set a name plate wheeling charge TSID had to redesign its Hydro plant from 2 Francis turbines to one This however did create the potential to bring pressurized water to the 4000 acres below Watson Reservoir in the future The piping of the Uncle John lateral will bring pressurized water on farm to 560 acres and eventually eliminate TSIDs largest flood irrigator

In tum when the Hydro plant is built in 2012 and goes on line in 2013 TSID will produce approximately 3100000 KWH enough green power to serve 300 homes during the irrigation season March-October

9

The system consists of a series ofDistrict owned and operated canals privately owned and operated ditches and two principal water storage facilities Water diverted from Whychus Creek flows to the Watson Reservoir from which it runs through the Main Canal and Cloverdale Canal to the McKenzie Reservoir Along the way a series ofprivate ditches is fed each with its own head gates and measuring devices From the McKenzie Reservoir water runs down the Association and Black Butte Pipelines where it serves the needs of McKenzie Canyon and Lower Bridge members Of the 60 miles of canals and ditches over 34 miles are piped Over 4000 of the 8000 irrigated acres are served by pipelines

Pipeline Canal and Ditch Lengths Main Canal Pipeline from Diversion to Watson Reservoir Approx 4 miles Main Canal from Watson to McKenzie Reservoir Approx 5 miles Cloverdale Canal Approx 10 miles (3 miles piped) Black Butte Canal Pipeline Approx 105 miles Association Canal Pipeline Approx 2 miles Hurtley This pipeline consists of approximately 10000 to 13000ft ofburied PVC and above ground aluminum pipe The system serves approximately 30 parcels Desert Sands These 2 pipelines consist ofapproximately 5000 to 6000 feet ofburied PVC BillingsHalousek Group Approximately 4600ft of open ditch Cement Approximately 6000ft of open concrete ditch Hermens Approximately 2800ft of open concrete ditch and 1500ft ofPVC pipe Uncle John Approximately 3 miles ofopen ditch

COMPLETED CONSERVATION PROJECTS

Vermilyea The project involved piping approximately 3000ft of the 7000ft ditch The project conserves between 50 to 7 5 acre-feet per irrigation season

Brown The Brown project involved the elimination of approximately an 8000ft ditch The 5 farms that the ditch served were all converted from on farm flood irrigation to pressurized sprinklers The project conserves over 500-acre feet per irrigation season

Bartlemay Pipeline The Bartlemay Pipeline was a model conservation project 7200 feet of open ditch with a 50 loss factor has been put in pipe and buried Three of the five ponds have been lined The project conserves from 300 to 500 acre-feet per season

Thompson The project eliminated the Thompson Ditch which was approximately 7000ft Subsequently returning 1 cfs of 1885 senior water right and 1 cfs junior 1900 water right to the stretch ofWhychus Creek between TSIDs diversion and the proposed diversion point on the Deggendorfer property 15-10-2 tax lot 100 The project also eliminated existing ditch losses The project changed the flood irrigation to a sprinkler system Directly resulting in conservation ofwater applied to existing crops

Cloverdale The Cloverdale canal serves 1000 acres of farmland in Three Sisters Irrigation District Traditionally the transmission loss of the canal has been between 45 and 55 As a result when running the maximum flow of20 cfs only approximately 10 cfs was being delivered to the farmers By piping 14880 feet of the canal TSID hoped to save 4 cfs in transmission losses TSID dedicated 2 cfs to instream and 2 cfs will be available to all the farmers in the district

Schaad This project replaced approximately 8000ft of open ditch with HDPE ADS pipe The project conserves from 200 to 300 acre feet per season

10

B-Ditch This project replaced approximately 6000 of7000ft ofopen ditch with culvert and PVC This project was unique because 3 of the landowners paid for the whole project without the help of any grant monies The project conserves from 200 to 300 acre-feet per season

Fryrear The project included the replacement of an existing open lateral (identified as the Fryrear Ditch) with a buried pipeline It provides irrigation water for approximately 475acres This project consisted of piping approximately the first 19000 of ditch This distance included sections traveling through Forest Service lands and very high seepage reaches of canal Benefits have accrued due to water savings electrical energy conservation and reduction of operation and management costs The water savings in this project are of special consideration because the reduction of diversion flows from Whychus Creek has increased in-stream flows on a year round basis Whychus Creek has traditionally been completely dewatered during the irrigation season and only recently has a year round flow been established The conservation efforts of the Three Sisters Irrigation District and local conservation organizations are responsible for the augmented flows The project has returned a flow rate of 15 cubic foot per second to Whychus Creek and annually conserves an estimated total of600 acre-feet of water

Z-Ditch This project replaced approximately 6000 ft of open ditch with HDPE This project was a huge improvement for the 5landowners Prior to the piping each landowner received water just 1 day a week The project conserves from 200 to 300 acre feet per season

McKenzie CanyonBlack Butte Canal The project will include the replacement ofTSID s Black Butte and Association canals with a buried pipeline resulting in the permanent transfer of 6 cfs ofwater to Whychus Creek

Arnold Ditch This project has replaced approximately 9240 of open ditch with PVC pipe This project serves 6landowners that farm 155 acres The project will conserve from 300 to 400 acre feet per season

Vetterlein This project replaced an open lateral with a buried pipeline It provides irrigation water for approximately 160 acres This project consisted ofpiping 15000 feet of ditch with HDPE pipe Benefits have accrued due to water savings electrical energy conservation and reduction of operation and management costs

The Three Sisters Irrigation District was founded in 1917 from the Squaw Creek Irrigation Company and the Cloverdale Irrigation Company which were founded in 1895 and 1903 respectively making Three Sisters Irrigation District one of the oldest such districts in Oregon

The Three Sisters Irrigation District is a quasi-governmental corporation a political subdivision of the State of Oregon duly organized and operated under Oregon law governing irrigation and other special districts Special districts are governed by a variety of Oregon statutes and administrative rules more specifically Chapter 545 of the Oregon Revised statutes addresses the operation of irrigation districts In addition an entire body oflaw and custom has developed around the question of access to water in Oregons streams and the water rights attendant to that access

Identify any past working relationships with Reclamation This should include the date(s) description of prior relationships with Reclamation and a description of the projects(s)

bull 2010 Phase III Main Canal Water and Energy Efficiency WaterSMART Challenge Grant $1000000 R010AP1C066 Replace 5175 feet ofMain Canal with dual 54 HDPE Pipe amp Materials (Including fish passage channel restoration and installation ofFCA fishscreen at TSID diversion on Whychus Creek)

bull 2009 Phase I Main Canal Water Marketing and Efficiency ARRA Challenge Grant $1150000

11

R09AP1CR06 Purchased 16500 feet of 54 HDPE Pipe amp Material( Including 4 stainless steel headgates along with installing a SCADA and telemetry system

bull 2009 Phase I II amp III Main Canal TSID is a sub recipient ofBOR ARRA funding awarded R09AP1CR03 to Deschutes River Conservancy $2300000 Purchased 17900 feet of 54 HDPE Pipe amp Materials for Phase I II amp III

bull 2008 Water Conservation Field Services Program 1425-08-FG-1L-1354 10232008 BOR WCFSP grant for $3100 Purchased a mobile GPS unit with GIS software

bull 2008 System Optimization Review 1425-08-FG-1L-1395 10232008 The grant is being used to develop an Agricultural Water Management and Conservation Plan (AWMampCP)

bull 2008 Phase I ofMcKenzie Canyon Irrigation Pipeline Project BOR 2025 Challenge grant for $300000 1425-08-FG-1L-1397 9152008

bull 2006 Phase IV ofMcKenzie Canyon Irrigation Pipeline Project BOR 2025 Challenge grant for $300000 1425-06-FC-1L-1250 9212006

bull 2005 Phase V ofMcKenzie Canyon Irrigation Pipeline Project BOR 2025 Challenge grant for $300000 1425-05-FC-1L-1168 9232005

bull 2000 and 2002 we had cooperative grant agreements for gauging station in the Watson and McKenzie reservoirs in the Water Conservation Field Services Program

bull The Cloverdale and Fryrear Pipeline Project grants from the DRC

Technical Proposal Technical Project Description The technical project description should describe the work in detail including specific activities that will be accomplished as a result of this project This description shall have sufficient detail to permit a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal

Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Criterion A Water Conservation (32 points)

Subcriterion No At-Water Conservation

Subcriterion No Al(a)-Quantifiable Water Savings Describe the amount of water saved For projects that conserve water please state the estimated amount of water expected to be conserved (in acre-feet per year) as a direct result of this project Please provide sufficient detail supporting how the estimate was determined including all supporting calculations Please be sure to consider the questions associated with your project type (listed below) when determining the estimated water savings along with the necessary support needed for a full review of your proposal (please note the following is not an exclusive list of eligible project types If your proposed project does not align with any of the projects listed below

12

please be sure to provide support for the estimated project benefits including all supporting calculations and assumptions made) In addition all applicants should be sure to address the following

Phases 4-6 of the Main Canal Pipeline will conserve between 1600 and 2100 acre feet in canal seepage

annually

bull What is the applicants average annual acre-feet of water supply Historically TSID diverts between 30000 to 35000 acre feet 20000- 22000 in drought years like 1977 2001 amp 2005 The Oregon Water Resources Department maintains a gauging station near TSIDs diversion on TSIDs main canal The recorder takes a reading every 15 minutes Diversion records date back to 1960 Conversion from flood irrigation to sprinkler occurred in the late 1960s into 1970s Those conservation measures reduced TSID diversion from 50000 acre feet to 35000 acre feet

bull Where is that water currently going (ie back to the stream spilled at the end of the ditch seeping into the ground etc) Currently the ditch seepage loss of 6 cfs seeps into the ground

bull Where will the conserved water go The Main Canal Pipeline project will conserve approximately 6 cfs TSID will market 4 cfs to DRC

As in the past project like the Cloverdale pipeline Fryrear pipeline the 5 phases of the McKenzie

pipeline project and the 3 phases of the Main Canal Pipeline project TSID has contracted with DRC to

apply for a new in stream water right

Under Oregons water laws water right holders who implement a water conservation project can apply for a new water right equivalent to the amount ofwater that the project conserved This project will

create a new instream water right under Oregon law It will legally protect 3 cfs from river mile 265 to

the mouth ofWhychus Creek during the summer irrigation season

The Deschutes River Conservancy will complete Oregons Conserved Water application process with

the Oregon Department ofWater Resources on behalfofTSID This process will create a new instream water right of at 3 cfs with a multiple year certificate (1895 priority date) The instream right will

protect flows from April 1 to October 31 and at other times when TSID is diverting water The

additional3 cfs instream will increase the protected flow in 2015 from 25 to 28 cfs streamflow for fish

The other 2 cfs will be used to shore up delivery in times oflow flow thus mitigating drought conditions

(1) Canal LiningPiping Canal liningpiping projects can provide water savings when irrigation delivery systems experience significant losses due to canal seepage Applicants proposing liningpiping projects should address the following

o How has the estimated average annual water savings that will result from the project been determined Please provide all relevant calculations assumptions and supporting data TSID has a measuring device and gauging station at the outflow Watson Reservoir and BCW and gauging station at the inflow of McKenzie Reservoir Both of these measuring devices were partially cost-shared by BORin 2000 and 2002 As a result TSID has over 10 years ofloss data for the Main Canal over the project stretch

13

o How have average annual canal seepage losses been determined Have ponding andor inflowoutflow tests been conducted to determine seepage rates under varying conditions If so please provide detailed descriptions of testing methods and all results Ifnot please provide an explanation ofthe method(s) used to calculate seepage losses All estimates should be supported with multiple sets of datameasurements from representative sections of canals TSID records all delivery records to it~ patrons daily We are able to test on any given day what the canal loss between Watson and McKenzie by subtracting the deliveries from the canal flow At startup and during stock runs TSID has the ability to shut off all deliveries between the two reservoirs and subtract the water going across the McKenzie BCW from the outflow at Watson

o What are the expected post-project seepageleakage losses and how were these estimates determined (eg can data specific to the type of material being used in the project be provided) There will be no post-project seepage losses HDPE pipe has a 0 loss factor

o What are the anticipated annual transit loss reductions in terms of acre-feet per mile for the overall project and for each section of canal included in the project The anticipated loss reduction is approximately 830 acre feet per mile

o How will actual canal loss seepage reductions be verified TSID will work with DRC and a consultant to do a seepage loss study in 2012 to confirm TSIDs canal loss calculations

o Include a detailed description of the materials being used TSID used daily delivery records between 2000 and 2011 to make these calculations

(3) Irrigation Flow Measurement Irrigation flow measurement improvements can provide water savings when improved measurement accuracy results in reduced spills and over-deliveries to irrigators Applicants proposing municipal metering projects should address the following Delivery efficiency will improve in a number of ways First the additional conserved water will shore up deliveries to the entire district Second it now takes 5 hours water on water to reach McKenzie Reservoir and 12 to 18 hours to wet the ditch The piping of these three phases will cut that time frame in half All of the on farm projects will be converted from weirs to meters

o How have average annual water savings estimates been determined Please provide all relevant calculations assumptions and supporting data TSID used daily delivery records between 2000 and 2011 to make these calculations

o Are flows currently measured at proposed sites and if so what is the accuracy of existing devices How has the existing measurement accuracy been established Weirs for spot measurements tend to by+- 5 however if a headgate plugs the accuracy is severely hampered and accurate measurement is lost until the problem is corrected

o Provide detailed descriptions of all proposed flow measurement devices including accuracy and the basis for the accuracy The majority of current on farm deliveries are weirs which get read once daily These will all be switched to micrometer propeller meters which have accuracy of+- 2

o How will actual water savings be verified upon completion of the project With piping projects losses and conserved water savings have to be verified prior to the project being started The increase of on farm available water during low flows validates the savings as well as the in-stream conserved water which is measured by the Oregon Water Resources Department every 15 minutes

14

Subcriterion No Al(b)-Improved Water Management Describe the amount of water better managed For projects that improve water management but which may not result in measurable water savings state the amount of water expected to be better managed in acre- feet per year and as a percentage of the average annual water supply (The average annual water supply is the amount actually diverted pumped or released from storage on average each year This does not refer to the applicants total water right or potential water supply) Please use the following formula Estimated Amount of Water Better ManagedAverage Annual Water Supply

20000acre ft30000acre ft = 6667

The Main Canal Pipeline project will help better manage the fluctuating flow in the 2 pipes of 30-100 cfs The piping will eliminate ditch cleaning and maintenance as well as suspended silt and gravel movement Replacing the open canal with pipe eliminates all of the old lift structures (aging infrastructure) Replacing all of the head gates and weirs with valves and meters allows the ditch rider to more easily regulate percentage water because the meters read in gallons and totalize in acre feet

Subcriterion No A2-Percentage of Total Supply Provide the percentage of total water supply conserved State the applicants total average annual water supply in acre-feet Please use the following formula Estimated Amount of Water ConservedAverage Annual Water Supply

2500 acre ft30000 acre ft = 833

Subcriterion No A3-Reasonableness of Costs Please include information related to the total project cost annual acre-feet conserved (or better managed) and the expected life of the improvement Use the following calculation TotalProject Cost(Acre-Feet Conserved or Better Managed x Improvement Life)

$5940841(2500 acre ft 100 years (HDPE pipe))= 2376

For all projects involving physical improvements specify the expected life of the improvement in number of years and provide support for the expectation (eg manufacturers guarantee industry accepted lifeshyexpectancy description of corrosion mitigation for ferrous pipe and fittings etc)

HDPE has the potential to last 1000 years The HDPE pipe manufacturers are hesitant to put that in writing They refer to HDPE pipe as a 100 year pipe Currently all HDPE pipe manufacturers offer a 50 year warrantee

Evaluation Criterion B Energy-Water Nexus (16 points)

Subcriterion No 82-Increasing Energy Efficiency in Water Management Describe any energy efficiencies that are expected to result from implementation of the water conservation or water management project (eg reduced pumping) Please provide sufficient detail supporting the calculation of any energy savings expected to result from water conservation improvements

Currently TSID has a 5-year agricultural and AWEP grant from NRCS The first 20 farms of the 100 will be receiving pressurized water from both Main Canal Phase 1-3 Pipeline project and the Uncle John Pipeline project which will be constructed in 2012 The remaining 80 on farm projects will be built over the next 4 years

15

as the Main Canal Pipeline project phases 4-9 are installed TSID has not taken an inventory of the on farm pumps That will be done on an annual basis as they are eliminated

bull Please describe the current pumping requirements and the types of pumps (eg size) currently being used How would the proposed project impact the current pumping requirements

Phases 4-6 of this project will serve 2000 of the 4000 acres in the Upper District The pumping stations

on these farms will eliminated When TSID built the McKenzie Pipeline project there was total of906

hp eliminated that served 2000 acres Since the pipeline went online in 2005 this project has conserved

annually 3 million kwh

The calculation used to determine the McKenzie energy savings was the horsepower of the inventoried

pumps x 24 hours x the number ofdays in the irrigation season x 75 efficiency The same calculation

will be used to determine the savings for phases 4-6 once the on farm inventory has been taken

bull Please indicate whether your energy savings estimate originates from the point of diversion or whether the estimate is based upon an alternate site of origin

All energy saving are realized on farm

bull Does the calculation include the energy required to treat the water

No energy is required to treat the water

Describe any renewable energy components that will result in minimal energy savingsproduction (eg installing small-scale solar as part of a SCADA system)

NA

Evaluation Criterion C Benefits to Endangered Species 12 points) For projects that will directly benefit federally-recognized candidate species please include the following elements

(1) Relationship of the species to water supply

Red Band Trout

The biological status (life history diversity trends in population abundance and productivity) of red band trout

populations is mixed Red band trout are moderately abundant in the limited amount ofheadwater tributaries

with good habitat and cool water Red band trout populations are depressed however in main stem rivers and

tributaries with degraded riparian zones poor fish habitat and warm water Overall wild red band trout

populations are depressed compared to historical numbers As a result red band trout are listed as a state

sensitive species and as a Category 2 sensitive species by the USFS

The principal red band trout production areas existing within the Upper Deschutes Basin include the main

stem Deschutes River up to Big Falls Whychus Creek the Deschutes River above Crane Prairie Reservoir

the Crooked River below Bowman Dam and the North Fork Crooked River and tributaries (NPCC 2004)

These populations are considered strong and viable

16

(2) What is the extent to which the proposed project would reduce the likelihood of listing or would otherwise improve the status of the species

The additional flows in Whychus Creek have already increased the redd counts Additional water will benefit the riparian habitat and improve spawning and rearing habitat which in tum improves population numbers

For projects that will directly accelerate the recovery of threatened or endangered species or address designated critical habitats please include the following elements

(1) How is the species adversely affected by a Reclamation project

There are 21isted species in the Deschutes Basin (Mid-Columbia Steelhead and Bull Trout) that are affected by irrigation withdrawals from the Crooked River by Reclamation Projects

(2) Is the species subject to a recovery plan or conservation plan under the Endangered Species Act

Yes Bull Trout USF amp W Columbia Bull Trout Recovery Plan Steelhead NMFS Mid-Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan


Additonal flow in Whychus Creek creates a minimum spawning flow improves riparian habitat improves foraging and rearing reaches and improves water quality by lowering temperature All of these improvements will result in the return of over a thousand spawning steelhead adults which in tum could double the summer steelhead run in the Deschutes River That increase in numbers would move the Deschutes population into the highly viable category on the charts listed in NMFS Mid-Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan

Evaluation Criterion D Water Marketing (12 points) Briefly describe any water marketing elements included in the proposed project Include the following elements

(1) Estimated amount of water to be marketed

Phases 4-6 will conserve approximately 6 cfs TSID will market 4 cfs to DRC The remaining conserved water will help shore up on farm deliveries in the District

(2) A detailed description of the mechanism through which water will be marketed (eg individual sale contribution to an existing market the creation of a new water market or construction of a recharge facility)

As in the past projects like the Cloverdale pipeline Fryrear pipeline the 5 phases of the McKenzie pipeline and the Main Canal Pipeline phases 1-3 TSID has contracted with DRC to apply for a new in stream water right

Under Oregons water laws water right holders who implement a water conservation project can apply for a new water right equivalent to the amount ofwater that the project conserved This project will create a new instream water right under Oregon law It will legally protect 3 cfs from river mile 265 to the mouth of Whychus Creek during the summer irrigation season

(3) Number of users types of water use etc in the water market

17

Marketed Conserved water will be used for environmental uses The 3 cfs dedicated in-stream will benefit fish and water quality Whychus is listed on the 303d list for temperature The City of Sisters its residents and visitors will benefit from increased flow that helps enhance recreational experiences on Whychus Creek for everyone The remainder of the conserved water will be used for irrigation The 2 cfs that will be used to shore up deliveries will benefit the 175 farms in TSID

(4) A description of any legal issues pertaining to water marketing (eg restrictions under Reclamation law or contracts individual project authorities or State water laws)

TSID has not had any legal issues or problems regarding recent water marketing transactions All 8 conserved water applications for the McKenzie and Main Canal projects moved through the process and proposed final orders were issued Final water right certificates were issued on all 8 phases as they were completed

(5) Estimated duration of the water market

The Conserved Water application process with the Oregon Department of Water Resources will create a transferred in-stream water right that is held in perpetuity by the State of Oregon

Evaluation Criterion E Other Contributions to Water Supply Sustainability This criterion is intended to provide an opportunity for the applicant to explain any additional benefits of the proposed project within the water basin including benefits to downstream water users or to the environment Please provide sufficient explanation of the expected benefits and their significance including any information about water supply conditions within the basin (eg is the river aquifer or other source of supply over-allocated Is there frequently tension or litigation over water in the basin Are there endangered species within the basin or other factors that may lead to heightened competition for available water supplies among multiple water uses Is the possibility of future water conservation improvements by other water users enhanced by completion of this project ) Additional project benefits may include but are not limited to the following

(1) Will the project make water available to address a specific concern For example

bull Will the project address water supply shortages due to climate variability andor heightened competition for imite water supplies (eg population growth or drought)

Yes The ultimate goal is stretch TSIDs available water supplies through conservation because they are affected by both climate and population growth This will enable us to achieve sustainable farming and address ESA amp CWA challenges

bull Will the project market water to other users If so what is the significance of this (eg does this help stretch water supplies in a water-short basin)

Yes The marketing of the conserved water for environmental restoration helps address ESA amp CW A concerns for the for the District City Environment and the Community Conserving water through piping helps to stretch water supplies for both fish and farms without having to create a new supply in a water-short basin

bull Will the project make additional water available for Indian tribes

18

Yes The additional in stream flow travels down Whychus Creek to the Deschutes River into Lake Billy Chinook where the Confederated Tribes ofWarm Springs amp PGE will benefit form both flow and additional power production

bull Will the project help to address an issue that could potentially result in an interruption to the water supply if unresolved (eg will the project benefit an endangered species by maintaining an adequate water supply)

Yes ESA and CWA litigation in other basins has interrupted water supply many times TSID is working with the other 6 Irrigation Districts in the Deschutes Basin on a basin-wide habitat conservation plan Currently both USFW and NMFS are encouraging all 7 districts to be proactive and implement as many conservation projects as possible to avoid future litigation

bull Will the project generally make more water available in the water basin where the proposed work is located

Yes

(2) Does the project promote and encourage collaboration among parties

Yes Whychus Creek has become a rallying point for stream restoration in the upper Deschutes Basin Local state federal and tribal agencies and organizations have coalesced around anadromous fish reintroduction and restosation efforts have received enormous support from local communities and funding partners Local and regional media including the Bend Bulletin the Oregonian the Sisters Nugget High Country News and Oregon Public Broadcasting have highlighted the reintroduction of salmon and steelhead to the upper Deschutes Basin as an historic event The Deschutes River Conservancy and its partners have built on this public support to develop strong relationships with local communities and state federal and tribal agencies These relationships are instrumental to our success in restoring Whychus Creek

bull Is there widespread support for the project

Yes Local state federal and tribal agencies and organizations have consistently identified Whychus Creek as a priority for restoration and they have consistently listed stream flow as the primary factor

limiting fish production in the creek The following plans and assessments identify the limiting factors

that this project addresses highlight the efficacy of the stream flow restoration or prioritize the

ecological importance of restoration in Whychus Creek

bull Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment ESA Recovery Plan (National Marine Fisheries Service 2008)

o The Deschutes River Westside summer steelhead population which includes Whychus Creek is considered High Risk for viability (Appendix B p B-47)

bull Reintroduction and Conservation Plan for Anadromous Fish in the Upper Deschutes River Subshybasin Oregon Edition 1 Spring Chinook Salmon and Summer Steelhead (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation 2008)

o Whychus Creek steelhead smolt production potential estimated to be up to 13 of total steelhead smolt production potential in upper Deschutes Basin (p 18)

19

bull Whychus Creek was historically the strongest producer of steelhead in the Upper Deschutes Subbasin and is a priority for restoration (p 48) Deschutes Basin Restoration Priorities Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board 2007

o The alteration of the hydrologic regime is identified as having a High Impact on ecosystem health

bull Upper Deschutes Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plan Oregon Department of Agriculture 2007

o Identifies low streamflow in Whychus Creek as a contributing factor to poor water quality (p 35)

o Under Recommended Actions for irrigation management the plan suggests improving irrigation efficiency and instream flows through canal piping (p 14)

bull Deschutes Subbasin Plan Northwest Power and Conservation Council 2004 o The Deschutes Subbasin Plan provides almost 80 pages of site specific findings objectives

and management strategies (p 11 to 87) many of which involve increasing stream flow in reaches adversely affected by irrigation diversions Key habitat objectives for Whychus Creek include increasing minimum instream flow to meet the instream water right of 33 cfs below Indian Ford Creek (p 73)

bull Squaw Creek Watershed Action Plan Upper Deschutes Watershed Council 2002 o Goal1 of the Action Plan recommends improving instream flows (p 2) o Goal 2 recommends improving water quality (p 2)

bull SistersWhy-Chus Watershed Analysis US Forest Service 1998 o Identifies low streamflow as a key limiting factor affecting stream temperatures and riparian

habitat health (p 202) o Directs agencies and partners to restores streamflow while reducing conflicts between

irrigators and stream dependent fish and wildlife (p 215)

bull Upper Deschutes River Basin Water Conservation Study Bureau ofReclamation 1997 o Identifies Main Canal liningpiping as a major water conservation opportunity (p 1 03)

bull Upper Deschutes River Fish Management Plan Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife 1996 o Habitat limitations include low streamflow and poor water quality in dewatered sections (p

56)

bull Whychus Creek Watershed Assessment Deschutes County Soil and Water Conservation District 1994

o Recommends improvements to the efficiency of the irrigation canal system (p 38) o Identifies the McKenzie Canyon project as a priority action (Abstract p 1)

To the extent that stream channel floodplain and riparian functions are dependent on sufficient stream

flows this stream flow restoration project complements numerous other watershed activities including

bull Reintroduction of spring Chinook and ESA listed summer steelhead The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation and Portland General Electric began releasing steelhead fry in Whychus Creek during the spring of2007 and Chinook fry during the spring of2009 Efforts to reestablish anadromous fish in Whychus Creek will rely heavily

20

on the availability of instream flows during key time periods particularly during the spring arid summer

bull Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Minimum Instream Flows The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has established minimum instream flows for Whychus Creek Because these water rights carry a veryjunior priority date (1990) they are not met during the irrigation season except during extremely high flow events The Whychus Creek- Three Sisters Irrigation District Main Canal Piping Project utilizes the Oregon Conserved Water Statute and therefore protects water instream that is co-equal to the irrigation districts 1895 water right helping meet state requested minimum instream flows during the irrigation season each year

bull Deschutes Land Trust Preserve Restoration The Deschutes Land Trust is actively working to restore the Camp Polk and Rimrock Ranch preserves adjacent to Whychus Creek These preserves will eventually provide high quality habitat for fish and wildlife once restoration is complete Restoration is largely focused on riparian areas stream channel function and flood-plain connectivity Without adequate instream flows in Whychus Creek restoration of riparian areas stream channels and flood-plains would be difficult to achieve

bull Upper Deschutes Watershed Council Habitat Restoration In addition to working closely with the Deschutes Land Trust on their preserve restoration activities the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council is engaged in numerous riparian habitat projects along Whychus Creek that depend on streamflow restoration projects to be successful They plan to screen and restore both low and high flow passage at diversion dams on lower Whychus Creek The Upper Deschutes Watershed Council has partnered with the Deschutes National Forest to develop and implement a comprehensive fish passage fish screening and habitat restoration design at the TSID dam site

bull Deschutes County Soil and Water Conservation District On-Farm Irrigation Efficiency The Deschutes Soil and Water Conservation District has been aggressively pursuing on-farm conservation opportunities in the Whychus Creek watershed for several years In partnership with local farmers the Soil and Water Conservation District has been providing technical and financial assistance to improve water application efficacy reduce power consumption and eliminate operational losses

bull US Forest Service Restoration Program The Crooked River National Grasslands and the Deschutes National Forest have both implemented numerous restoration projects in recent years for the purpose of improving water quality and riparian habitat along Whychus Creek These projects include road obliteration near the creek riparian plantings dispersed camping set-backs and educational programs to improve public awareness of the importance ofWhychus Creek The Deschutes National Forest recently partnered with the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council to develop and implement a comprehensive fish passage fish screening and habitat restoration design at the TSID dam site

bull Three Sisters Irrigation District TSID has committed to working with local partners to improve conditions in Whychus Creek TSID has completed fish passage and screening at its diversion dam Due to the efforts of the last 10 years there is now over 20 cfs ofprotected permanent flow in Whychus Creek

bull What is the significance of the collaborationsupport

21

The significance of the collaboration and support is impressive and essential Litigation has plagued the Columbia River Bi-op for decades Salmon and Steelhead recovery and delisting efforts have required billions of dollars Collaboration cooperation and conlinunity efforts are the only way that the Northwest will solve these issues Without this significant level of support from all of the collaborative partners we would not be able to build upon the success of our cumulative projects to achieve a successful anadramous reintroduction in our Basin

bull Will the project help to prevent a water-related crisis or conflict

Yes this project will help to prevent future conflict and litigation by helping make the anadromous reshyintroduction a success

(3) Will the proposed WaterSMART Grant project help to expedite future on farm irrigation improvements including future on farm improvements that may be eligible for Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) funding

If so please address the following

Include a detailed listing of the fields and acreage that may be improved in the future

bull Describe in detail the on-farm improvements that can be made as a result of this project Include discussion of any planned or ongoing efforts by farmersranchers that receive water from the applicant

The AWEP on-farm portion of the project has been divided into five phases Upper District farmers and ranchers in the purchase fuel fertilizer equipment and supplies from local businesses as well as creating both on- and off-farm jobs Deschutes County businesses depending on local farms and ranches to purchases goods and services include-feed stores farm and ranch supply stores hardware stores veterinarians tractor and implement dealers seed and fertilizer companies irrigation planners suppliers and technicians livestock auction yards and numerous other spin-offbusinesses

Over the last ten years farmers and ranchers in the TSID have experienced increasing pressure from the regulatory demands of the ESA (bull trout and the reintroduction of anadromous fish) Furthermore continually rising prices (for fuel fertilizer electric power and equipment) and housing development pressures have pushed many farms and ranches in Central Oregon out ofbusiness For example rising electric rates have increased from 01 per kilowatt to 05kw over the last 20 years A farmer who was paying $5000 a year for electricity in 1984 today pays $25000

Farmers and ranchers in the project area are taking proactive steps to adopt and fund natural resource improvements for salmon steelhead and bull trout recovery rather than wait for potential enforcement actions This project will help sustain agriculture and the environment

Oregon States land use laws were created to protect farmland Presently the irrigated agricultural acres in the lower TSID are zoned for exclusive farm use (EFU) This zone requires a person to own at least 63 irrigated acres to build a home on their property and controls subdividing valuable farmlands for suburban residential use

TSID agricultural irrigators are motivated to conserve irrigation water and do what is necessary so that both fish and farms can thrive for future generations

22

Some of the community benefits are

o water conservation (elimination of existing canal seepage and evaporation) augmented in-stream flows in Whychus Creek that will benefit Redband and Bull Trout Chinook and Steelhead

o Improved control of water in conveyance and delivery system

o Reduction ofoperational losses (Spills amp Canal Breeching)

o Pressurization of delivery to all irrigators Leading to less reliance on electrically-driven pumps o Electrical power conservation

bull Provide a detailed explanation of how the proposed WaterSMART Grant project would help to expedite such on-farm efficiency improvements

In order to save water and save energy its important for TSID to install a pressurized main canal pipeline Without the save energy incentive the on-farm improvements are much less likely to occur

bull Fully describe the on-farm water conservation or water use efficiency benefits that would result from the enabled on-farm component of this project Estimate the potential on-farm water savings that could result in acre-feet per year Include support or backup documentation for any calculations or assumptions

On-farm seepage loss depends on how far the water has to travel from the main canal to the point of dispersion The A WEP program is voluntary and each individual farmer has to qualify

Currently there are a total of 85 on farm projects that would be contracted with 85 producers

21 producers will install on farm conservation practices that would be started in 2011 and completed by 2012 18 producers will install on farm conservation practices that would be started in 2012 and completed by 2013 27 producers will install on farm conservation practices that would be started in 2013 and completed by 2014

37 producers will install on farm conservation practices that would be started in 2014 and completed by 2015

TSID will be working with all 85 producers and NRCS to make sure that all on farm conservation practices are installed and completed on time and to NRCS EQIP contract standards

The 2000 acres that would be served by the Main Canal Pipeline Project phases 4-6 would conserve approximately 500-600 acre feet annually on farm Seepage loss analysis was identified in TSIDs SOR piping and conserved water assessment

bull Projects that include significant on-farm irrigation improvements should demonstrate the eligibility commitment and number or percentage of shareholders who plan to participate in any available NRCS funding programs Applicants should provide letters of intent from farmersranchers in the affected project areas

NRCS contracted with 13 farms for 2011-2012 period TSID expects 20 additional farms to be contracted in the next period

23

bull Describe the extent to which this project complements an existing or newly awarded AWEP project

In order to get the pressurized on-farm improvements pressurized water has to be delivered to the farms This project delivers the save energy portion of the save water save energy program which is the main focal point of this 5 year A WEP agreement

(4) Will the project increase awareness of water andor energy conservation and efficiency efforts

Yes There have already been a number of tours of the completed projects and articles written about them Those AWEP success stories can be viewed at httpwwwornrcsusdagovnewsshowcaseindexhtml

bull Will the project serve as an example of water andor energy conservation and efficiency within a community

Yes Like the McKenzie project with all the measurable results upon completion of future phases this project sets an example for the community the state and the nation

bull Will the project increase the capability of future water conservation or energy efficiency efforts for use by others

Like the McKenzie project this project serves as a blueprint for projects under NRCSs SWSE program

bull Does the project integrate water and energy components

Yes It conserves water and eliminates electrical usage

Evaluation Criterion F Implementation and Results (10 points)

Subcriterion No Ft-ProjectPlanning Does the project have a Water Conservation Plan System Optimization Review (SOR) andor district or geographic area drought contingency plans in place Is the project part of a comprehensive water management plan (eg the Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan) Please self-certify or provide copies of these plans where appropriate to verify that such a plan is in place Provide the following information regarding project planning

(1) Identify any district-wide or system-wide planning that provides support for the proposed project This could include a Water Conservation Plan SOR or other planning efforts done to determine the priority of this project in relation to other potential projects

Currently TSID has finished completing a System Optimization Review ofTSID whole system This effort involves over 35 TSID member volunteers who helped with the end product which is an Agricultural Water Management amp Conservation Plan (A WMCP) In the A WMCP TSID focused on these items The TSID SOR consists of these items (1) Piping amp conserved water assessment

(2) Measurement amp telemetry plans for TSID (3) Fish screen and passage upgrade design (4) Completed and updated GIS database (5) Expansion of current IWM (Irrigation Water Management) Program (6) Plan for a Whychus Branch ofDWA Water Bank

24

A copy cannot be attached due to the page length o(the SORA WMCP and the application restriction ofonly a 75 pages middot

(2) Identify and describe any engineering or design work performed specifically in support of the proposed project

NRCS Redmond office is handling all of the on-farm engineering for each individual AWEP EQIP project TSID is currently working with NRCS engineer Bill Cronin on the Uncle John project and will move forward this summer on the engineering for the Main Canal Pipeline phases 4-6

(3) Describe how the project conforms to and meets the goals of any applicable State or regional water plans and identify any aspect of the project that implements a feature of an existing water plan(s)

The following plans and assessments identify the limiting factors that this project addresses highlight the efficacy of the stream flow restoration or prioritize the ecological importance of restoration in Whychus Creek



bull Reintroduction and Conservation Plan for Anadromous Fish in the Upper Deschutes River Subshybasin Oregon Edition 1 Spring Chinook Salmon and Summer Steelhead (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Confederated Tribes of the W ann Springs Reservation 2008)






o Under Recommended Actions for irrigation management the plan suggests improving irrigation efficiency andinstream flows through canal piping (p 14)



bull Squaw Creek Watershed Action Plan Upper Deschutes Watershed Council 2002 o Goal 1 of the Action Plan recommends improving instream flows (p 2) o Goal 2 recommends improving water quality (p 2)

25






56)



Subcriterion No F2-Readiness to Proceed Describe the implementation plan of the proposed project Please include an estimated project schedule that shows the stages and duration of the proposed work including major tasks milestones and dates Please explain any permits that will be required along with the process for obtaining such permits

Phase 4 March 2012 Contract NEP A for project

April2012 Pipeline Engineering

Sept 2012 Complete NEP A (CE and SHPO consultation)

OctNov 2012 Order Pipe and Materials

Dec 2012 Start Construction ofPipeline (Excavation)

Jan 2013 Weld and Install Pipeline

March2013 Backfill Pipeline

April2013 Tum on and deliver pressurized water

Phase 5


Dec 2013 Start Construction of Pipeline (Excavation)




Phase 4




March 2015 Backfill Pipeline


26

All NRCS A WEP on-farm projects will be contracted individually with each farmer On private lateral piping projects TSID will work with the farmers to do the work unless the farmer choses to do the work himself or hire a private contractor Since the pipeline will be constructed on TSID and patron-owned properties no permits other than NEP A compliance will be required

Subcriterion No F3-Performance Measures Provide a brief summary describing the performance measure that will be used to quantify actual benefits upon completion of the project (ie water saved marketed or better managed or energy saved) For more information calculating performance measure see Section VIIIAl Fyen2013 WaterSMART Water and Energy Efficiency Grants Performance Measures Note All WaterSMART Grant applicants are required to propose a performance measure (a method of quantifying the actual benefits of their project once it is completed) A provision will be included in all assistance agreements with WaterSMART Grant recipients describing the performance measure and requiring the recipient to quantify the actual project benefits in their fmal report to Reclamation upon completion of the project If information regarding project benefits is not available immediately upon completion of the project the fmancial assistance agreement may be modified to remain open until such information is available and until a Final Report is submitted Quantification of project benefits is an important means to determine the relative effectiveness of various water management efforts as well as the overall effectiveness of WaterSMART Grants

The Main Canal stretch to be piped in phases 4-6 has an average seepage loss of 6 cfs Over a 210 day irrigation season (April- Oct) that translates into 1600-2100 acre feet per season The Deschutes River Conservancy will complete Oregons Conserved Water application process with the

Oregon Department ofWater Resources on behalf ofTSID This process will create a new instream water right of at 3 cfs with a multiple year certificate (1895 priority date) The in-stream right will protect flows from April

1 to October 31 and at other times when TSID is diverting water The additional 3 cfs instream will increase the protected flow in 2015 from 25 to 28 cfs

The District intends to use the Oregon Conserved Water Statute to allow the saved water to be allocated instream (OAR 690-018-0010 to 690-018-0090 and ORS 537455 to 537500) The District will not divert the saved water at its diversion point but instead leave the conserved water in the river where it will be protected by the Oregon Water Resources Department from other withdrawals and measured at the gauging stations located at Camp Polk and the City of Sisters Preliminary saved water was determined to be a minimum of 6 cfs for the period of April 15th through October 15th of each year Increased stream flow in Whychus Creek will help reconnect the creek with the floodplain create more backwater and pool habitat for fish and improve the health of the riparian habitat community

The Deschutes River Conservancy will focus on monitoring both the water outputs and economic outputs from this project The Oregon Water Resources Department maintains a near-real-time web accessible stream gauge downstream from the TSID diversion at Sisters (river mile 21 ) The Deschutes River Conservancy will use this gauge to determine whether stream flows are meeting targets on a daily basis and will use this gauge to determine overall implementation Protected flows instream are monitored daily by OWRDDRC TSID and the public

It is anticipated that the project will enhance water quality in Whychus Creek by increasing the rate of flow and

27

thus reducing the impacts of solar heating and low dissolved oxygen levels Increased stream flow may also increase riparian vegetation leading to inore canopy cover and reduced stream flow temperatures Whychus Creek is currently listed under the Oregon DEQ 303(d) criteria for temperature(DEQ 2002) Improved stream flow conditions will benefit fish and wildlife communities that inhabit the Whychus Creek ecosystem

ODFampW as well as fish biologists from (NOAA USFW USPS TRIBESPGE) who are involved with the anadramous reintroduction will continue to monitor the benefits of additional flow for fish

DEQ and the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council who have 15 water quality monitoring stations on Whychus Creek as well as the Tribes will continue to monitor temperature and other water quality benefits from increased flow

Evaluation Criterion G Connection to Reclamation Project Activities (1) How is the proposed project connected to Reclamation project activities

TSID does not serve Reclamation project lands and does not receive any Reclamation project water But additional instream flows in Whychus Creek which flow into the Deschutes River will help with BORs minimum stream flow requirements from NOAA and US Fish as per the ongoing Section 7 consultation for the Pelton and Round Butte Dam PERC re-licensing agreement Those flows will also benefit Wild and Scenic reaches on the Deschutes River Whychus Creek also was historically an important spawning and rearing stream for steelhead and Chinook salmon until passage was curtailed around Pelton and Round Butte Dams on the Deschutes River PERC re-licensing is requiring passage of anadromous fish at these two dams which makes the restoration of Whychus Creek a priority of fishery agencies tribes and others The focus of this project is to conserve water by improving irrigation delivery efficiencies so that adequate flows can be maintained in Whychus Creek Whychus Creek historically (prior to the dams) has provided 13 of the steelhead runs in the Deschutes River If the anadromous fish runs are restored through spawning in Whychus Creek then pressure to restore the Crooked River runs by additional flow requirements in the Crooked River from North Unit ID and Ochoco ID will be lessened NOAA fisheries have viewed past conservation projects that TSID and BOR have partnered on as benefiting the whole basin TSID continued efforts will be beneficial to all members ofthe Deschutes Basin Board of Control (DBBC) as well as BOR during the ongoing Deschutes Basin Habitat Conservation Plan process

(2) Does the applicant receive Reclamation project water

No

(3) Is the project on Reclamation project lands or involving Reclamation facilities

No

(4) Is the project in the same basin as a Reclamation project or activity

Yes

(5) Will the proposed work contribute water to a basin where a Reclamation project is located

Yes

28

Environmental Compliance To allow Reclamation to assess the probable environmental impacts and costs associated with each application all applicants must respond to the following list of questions focusing on the NEPA ESA and NHP A requirements Please answer the following questions to the best of your knowledge If any question is not applicable to the project please explain why Additional information about environmental compliance is provided in Section IVD4 Budget Proposal under the discussion of Environmental and Regulatory Compliance Costs and in Section VIIIB Overview of Environmental Compliance Requirements

(1) Will the project impact the surrounding environment (eg soil [dust] air water [quality and quantity] animal habitat) Please briefly describe all earth disturbing work and any work that will affect the air water or animal habitat in the project area Please also explain the impacts of such work on the surrounding environment and any steps that could be taken to minimize the impacts

Wildlife Bald eagles are known to inhabit the lower portion of the Whychus Creek Watershed with incidental use in the Lower Division of the TSID project area Two bald eagle nesting sites (currently not in use) have been observed at Watson Reservoir The following wildlife species are found in the project area mule deer elk coyotes ground squirrels mountain lions common ravens turkey vultures golden eagles and red-tailed hawks Irrigated agriculture has provided forage for numerous wildlife species Also irrigation ponds provide water for many wildlife species Watson Reservoir and Whychus creek and nearby farm ponds will provide adequate water for wildlife

Pipeline Construction All construction ofthe pipeline and the fish screen will occur in the Uncle John Ditch The Ditch has an 1891 right of way width of 50 feet on both sides of the canal A water truck will be used to control dust as needed Winter months tend to be snowy and wet around Sisters which helps with dust control Working in the canal will minimize all impacts Beneficial impacts from additional in stream flow for fish and water quality will be realized immediately upon completion of the pipeline

(2) Are you aware of any species listed or proposed to be listed as a Federal threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat in the project area If so would they be affected by any activities associated with the proposed project

There are no listed species in the project area The wildlife surveys from the Main Canal project phases 1-3 did not tum up any listed species during the NEP A process

ESA species present in Whychus Creek include MCR steelhead and Bull Trout Bull trout were consulted on by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) for all phases of the McKenzie Canyon project The NRCS received a concurrence from the Fish and Wildlife Service for a not likely to adversely affect determination The ESA status distribution life history and habitat requirements for MCR steelhead are described in Reclamations Final Biological Assessment on Continued Operation and Maintenance of the Deschutes River Basin Projects and Effects on Essential Fish Habitat under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (2003)

In May 2007 the Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife in cooperation with the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation began the process of reintroducing hatchery-raised fingerling steelhead into Whychus Creek a tributary ofthe Deschutes River above the Pelton Round Butte Hydroelectric (PRB) Project The reintroduction is part of a commitment made in the recent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (PERC) relicensing of the PRB Project Also in May 2007 NOAA Fisheries sent a letter to the Deschutes Basin Board

29

of Control stating that the juvenile steelhead used for this out planting are considered ESA listed (threatened) fish

Environmental baseline conditions for Deschutes River MCR steelhead are described in Reclamations Biological Assessment (Reclamation 2003) Whychus Creek currently has in-stream flow water quality and habitat features that may be limiting factors to successful steelhead trout reintroduction Historical reports indicated that Whychus Creek once served as the primary spawning and rearing habitat for steelhead trout in the upper Deschutes Basin (Nehlsen 1995) Since 1895 the flows ofWhychus Creek have been diverted for irrigation uses and have limited the rearing habitat of steelhead trout populations (Nehlsen 1995) The steelhead trout populations were extirpated in 1968 five years after the completion of the Pelton-Round Butte (PRB) complex Federal re-licensing ofthe PRB complex resulted in steelhead trout reintroduction to Whychus Creek beginning in 2007

Whychus Creek is Section 303(d) listed for temperature impairment because it does not meet state temperature standards set to protect salmon and trout rearing and migration

The proposed action will increase streamflow in Whychus Creek by an average of 26 cfs during the irrigation season (April- October) from TSIDs diversion at RM 27 on Whychus Creek to Lake Billy Chinook Historically Whychus Creek would run dry during most summers from the town of Sisters downstream to Alder Springs as a result of irrigation withdrawals Through water conservation efforts protected flows of almost 20 cfs now flow through the town of Sisters during irrigation season and are protected to Lake Billy Chinook TSID Main Canal Pipeline Project will improve water quality and quantity conditions in Whychus Creek that will subsequently benefit the reintroduction ofMCR steelhead into this basin

It was Reclamations determination that Reclamations proposed action of funding the TSIDs McKenzie Pipeline Phase I 2025 Project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect listed MCR steelhead in Whychus Creek Effects from the proposed action will be beneficial to MCR steelhead The Main Canal pipeline phases 4-6 is the same type of project as the Main Canal phases 1-3

(3) Are there wetlands or other surface waters inside the project boundaries that potentially fall under CWA jurisdiction as waters of the United States If so please describe and estimate any impacts the project may have

There are no jurisdictional wetlands along the Main Canal There are areas of seepage along the canal Cottonwood willows and other vegetation grows sporadically along portions of the open canal

(4) When was the water delivery system constructed

The Main Canal was constructed in 1891

(5) Will the project result in any modification of or effects to individual features of an irrigation system (eg headgates canals or flumes) If so state when those features were constructed and describe the nature and timing of any extensive alterations or modifications to those features completed previously

The head gate in Watson Reservoir which was built in 1964 will remain as is The Main Canal itself will be replaces with side-by-side a 42 gravity flow HDPE pipe and a 54 48 42 pressurized HDPE pipe Four lift structures that were built our of concrete and pressure-treated wood will be replaced with turnouts with valves and meters All these structures have been rebuilt over the years and were replaced in the 1970s and 1980s

30

middot

(6) Are any buildings structures or features inthe irrigation district listed Qr eligible for listing on the National Register of HistoriC Places A cultural resources specialistat your local Redamation office or the State Historic

Yes all canals in Central Oregon irrigation projects are eligible to the NRHP

(7) Are there any known archeological sites in the proposed project area

Not aware of any but that will be determined by the cultural resource survey

(8) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low income or minority populations

No

(9) Will the project limit access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites or result in other impacts on tribal lands

No

(10) Will the project contribute to the introduction continued existence or spread of noxious weeds or non-native invasive species known to occur in the area

No The Main Canal project phases 4-6 runs through all private property As in the past TSID will work with each individual farmer to plant dryland native grasses to deal with weed control In some cases the ground over the pipeline will be active farmland

31

Required Permits or Approvals Applicants must st~te in the application whether any permits or approvals are required and explain the plan for obtaining such permits or approvals

Pipeline TSID will work with the DRC and past contractors that didthe cultural resource survey and wildlife and botany surveys for the Main Canal phases 1-3 to satisfy all NEP A requirements including SHPO concurrence TSID will work with Reclamation to comply with all NEP A requirements For the Main Canal phases 1-3 NOAA e-mailed that it would not be necessary for Reclamation to consult on piping projects in the Deschutes Basin that will leave a portion of the conserved water in stream as long as the project is off channel and will have no negative impacts to streams and or rivers Also forphases 1-3 USFampW was informally consulted on Bull trout by Reclamation and determined there was no effect We expect the same outcome for phases 4-6

Funding Plan and Letters of Commitment Letters of commitment shall identify the following elements (1) The amount of funding commitment (2) The date the funds will be available to the applicant (3) Any time constraints on the availability of funds (4) Any other contingencies associated with the funding commitment

The funding plan must include all project costs as follows

(1) How you will make your contribution to the cost share requirement such as monetary andor in-kind contributions and source funds contributed by the applicant (eg reserve account tax revenue andor assessments)

Funding from Pelton and OWEB through DRC will be $1250000

Funding from TSID will be $794881 in cash that will be used to pay for labor fuel insurance contingency and other project costs TSID will borrow this money from the Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund The remaining $1582719 will consist of in-kind (which will include backfill and equipment) TSID currently owns a 100000 lb excavator D-8 Cat off road dump truck front end loader 4 dump trucks and backhoe which they will use to complete the projects

As in the past TSID will work with DRC to acquire funding from National Fish amp Wildlife Foundation and the National Forest Foundation to cover the remaining $310860

(2) Describe any in-kind costs incurred before the anticipated project start date

that you seek to include as project costs Include

(a) What project expenses have been incurred

None to date

(b) How they benefitted the project

(c) The amount of the expense

(d) The date of cost incurrence

32

(3) Provide the identity and amount of funding tobe provided by funding partners as well as the required letters of commitment

See attached letter in Appendix

(4) Describe any funding requested or received from other Federal partners

TSID will work with DRC as in the past to apply for grants from NFWF and NFF

(5) Describe any pending funding requests that have not yet been approved and explain how the project will be affected if such funding is denied

The above requests have not yet been approved As a backup TSID will borrow needed funds from the Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund

Based on past history with both DRC amp OWEB amp Pelton TSID is confident that this project will funded by DRC efforts to secure funding Currently TSID is working with DRC to sell additional conserved water for cash This will occur prior to Oct 2012 TSID will cover any unfunded portion with cash until DRC can secure funding TSID have a long history ofprojects and funding has always been secured

Please include the following chart (table 2) to summarize your non-Federal and other Federal funding sources Denote in-kind contributions with an asterisk () Please ensure that the total Federal funding (Reclamation and all other Federal sources) does not exceed 50 percent of the total estimated project cost

FUNDING SOURCE FUNDING AMOUNT

Non-Federal Entities

Three Sisters Irrigation District $2854981

Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000

Non-Federal Subtotal $4104981

Other Federal Entities

Reclamation Funding $1500000

Other 310860

Federal Subtotal $1810860

TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING $5915841

33

Official Resolution TISD will approve the attached resolution at their February 7 2012 board meeting

Budget Proposal

General Requirements Include a project budget that estimates all costs (not just costs to be borne by Reclamation) Include the value of in-kind contributions of goods and services and sources of funds provided to complete the project The proposal must clearly delineate between Reclamation and applicant contributions

Budget Proposal Format The project budget shall include detailed information on the categories listed below and must clearly identify all project costs and the funding source(s) (ie Reclamation or other funding sources) Unit costs shall be provided for all budget items including the cost of work to be provided by contractors Lump sum costs are not acceptable Additionally applicants shall include a narrative description ofthe items included in the project budget It is strongly advised that applicants usethe budget format shown on table 3 at the end of this section or a similar format that provides this information

Budget Narrative Format Submission of a budget narrative is mandatory An award will not be made to any applicant who fails to fully disclose this information The Budget Narrative provides a discussion of or explanation for items included in the budget proposal The types of information to describe in the narrative include but are not limited to those listed in the following subsections

Salaries and Wages Indicate program manager and other key personnel by name and title Other personnel may be indicated by title alone For all positions indicate salaries and wages estimated hours or percent of time and rate of compensation proposed The labor rates should identify the direct labor rate separate from the fringe rate or fringe cost for each category All labor estimates including any proposed subcontractors shall be allocated to specific tasks as outlined in the recipients technical project description Labor rates and proposed hours shall be displayed for each task Clearly identify any proposed salary increases and the effective date Generally salaries of administrative andor clerical personnel will be included as a portion of the stated indirect costs If these salaries can be adequately documented as direct costs they should be included in this section however a justification should be included in the budget narrative

Marc Thalacker TSID Manager Salary $7500000

Hourly is $3457 and fringe is $1167 per hour

Bill McKinney Construction Foreman Hourly is $2000 and fringe is $803 per hour

Currently TSID has 7 heavy equipment operators on staff For budgeting purposes we used $17 per hour which works out to a wage cost of$1700 and fringe benefit cost of$223 The pipeline will be built by TSID staff

Office administration is treated as a direct cost All hours and activities are documented on time sheets

34

Fringe Benefits Indicate ratesamounts what costs are inCluded in this category and the basis of the rate computations Indicate whether these rates are used for application purposes only or whether they are fixed or provisional rates for billing purposes Federally approved rate agreements are acceptable for compliance with this item

Fringe benefits average 20 of salary costs and include basic health insurance and vacation and sick time allowance costs

Travel Include purpose of trip destination number of persons traveling length of stay and all travel costs including airfare (basis for rate used) per diem lodging and miscellaneous travel expenses For local travel include mileage and rate of compensation

There is no travel by the District anticipated for this project Any travel costs from sub-contractors engineers and surveyors will be in paid for with TSID funds and should only include IRS approved mileage

Equipment Itemize costs of all equipment having a value of over $500 and include information as to the need for this equipment as well as how the equipment was priced if being purchased for the agreement If equipment is being rented specify the number of hours and the hourly rate Local rental rates are only accepted for equipment actually being rented or leased for the project If equipment currently owned by the applicant is proposed for use under the proposed project and the cost to use that eqQipment is being included in the budget as in-kind cost share provide the rates and hours for each piece of equipment owned and budgeted These should be ownership rates developed by the recipient for each piece of equipment If these rates are not available the US Army Corp of Engineers recommended equipment rates for the region are acceptable Blue book Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other data bases should not be used

TSID uses ACOE recommended rates minus fuel costs Fuel is itemized separately

Materials and Supplies Itemize supplies by major category unit price quantity and purpose such as whether the items are needed for office use research or construction Identify how these costs were estimated (ie quotes past experience engineering estimates or other methodology)

All materials and supplies are identified on the attached budget sheet These are based on past bids as well as current market information

Contractual Identify all work that will be accomplished by subrecipients consultants or contractors including a breakdown of all tasks to be completed and a detailed budget estimate of time rates supplies and materials that will be required for each task If a subrecipieut consultant or contractor is proposed and approved at time of award no other approvals will be required Any changes or additions will require a request for approval Identify how the budgeted costs for subrecipients consultants or contractors were determined to be fair and reasonable

TSID is not planning to hire any contractors for the pipeline We will do the work ourselves on the pipeline

35

Environmental and Regulatory Compliance Costs Applicants must include a line item in their budget to cover environmental compliance costs Environmental compliance costs refer to costs incurred by Reclamation or the recipient in complying with environmental regulations applicable to a WaterSMART Grant including costs associated with any required documentation of environmental compliance analyses pernlits or approvals Applicable Federal environmental laws could include NEPA ESA NHPA and the Clean Water Act and other regulations depending on the project Such costs may include but are not limited to bull The cost incurred by Reclamation to determine the level ofenvironmental compliance required for the project bull The cost incurred by Reclamation the recipient or a consultant to prepare any necessary environmental compliance documents or reports bull The cost incurred by Reclamation to review any environmental compliance documents prepared by a consultant bull The cost incurred by the recipient in acquiring any required approvals or permits or in implementing any required mitigation measures The amount of the line item should be based on the actual expected environmental compliance costs for the project However the minimum amount budgeted for environmental compliance should be equal to at least 1-2 percent of the total project costs If the amount budgeted is less than 1-2 percent of the total project costs you must include a compelling explanation of why less than 1-2 percent was budgeted How environmental compliance activities will be performed (eg by Reclamation the applicant or a consultant) and how the environmental compliance funds will be spent will be determined pursuant to subsequent agreement between Reclamation and the applicant If any portion of the funds budgeted for environmental compliance is not required for compliance activities such funds may be reallocated to the project if appropriate

TSID has budgeted a total of$15000 for environmental costs which is just less than 1 The reason for this is that this pipeline will be built on private property and as a result there is no federal nexus For the previous phases of the project where there was a federal nexus (the project was installed on Forest Service lands) the federal agencies involved found no significant environmental impact

Reporting Recipients are required to report on the status of their project on a regular basis Include a line item for reporting costs (including final project and evaluation costs) Please see Section VIC for information on types and frequency of reports required

The line item for the Manager includes time for reporting compliance requirements

Other Any other expenses not included in the above categories shall be listed in this category along with a description of the item and what it will be used for No profit or fee will be allowed

Indirect Costs Show the proposed rate cost base and proposed amount for allowable indirect costs based on the applicable OMB circular cost principles (see Section IIIE Cost Sharing Requirement) for the recipients organization It is not acceptable to simply incorporate indirect rates within other direct cost line items If the recipient has separate rates for recovery of labor overhead and general and administrative costs each rate shall be shown The applicant should propose rates for evaluation purposes which will be

36

used as fixed or ceiling rates in any resulting award Include a copy of any federally approved indirect cost rate agreement If a federally approved indirect rate agreement is not available provide supporting documentation for the rate This can include a recent recommendation by a qualified certified public accountant (CPA) along with support for the rate calculation Ifyou do not have a federally approved indirect cost rate agreement or if unapproved rates are used explain why and include the computational basis for the indirect expense pool and corresponding allocation base for each rate

For this project the District should not have any indirect costs All costs associated with the project are direct and can be documented as such

Contingency Costs All proposed contingency line-items must be supported by a rationale Further in most cases contingency cost estimates at are limited to 10 percent of projected construction costs

TSID has budgeted $100000 for the project cost TSID has a long history ofbeing on or under budget on material and project costs Obviously any cost over runs will be the responsibility ofTSID

Total Cost Indicate total amount of project costs including the Federal and non-Federal cost-share amounts

See Appendix for more detail




Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860



Budget Form See Appendix for budget form

37

IVE Funding Restrictions See Section IIIE for restrictions on incurrence and allowability ofpre-award costs

38

Appendix A

Project Maps

Appendix B

AWEP On-Farm Spreadsheets

amp Contract

Partnership Agreement 68-0436-1-075

Partnership Agreement between the Three Sisters Irrigation District and USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) through proyistons of the Agricultural Water

Enhancement Program (AWEP)

NRCS 68-0436-1075

Introduction

This Partnership Agreement is entered into between the US Department of Agriculture

(USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Seryice henceforth named NRCS and the Three

Sisters Irrigation District henceforth named TSID NRCS and TSID are engaged in

complementary and compatible activities related to providing financial and technical assistance

to farmers and ranchers through provisions of the Agricultural Water Enhancement Program

AWEP) Partnership activities include efforts to encourage conservation ofnatural resources

through technical and financial assistance which may be provided by both parties to the

agreement

I Authority

This Agreement is entered into in accordance with

Section 2707 of the Food Conservation and Energy Act of2008 which establishes the

Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP)

II Background

The Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP) is a voluntary conservation program that

establishes specific parameters for working with eligible partner entities to provide financial and

technical assistance to owners and operators ofagricultural and nonindustrial private forest

lands The assistance provided through this partnership agreement enables farmers and ranchers

to install and maintain conservation practices to address priority natural resource_ concerns The

Secretary ofAgriculture has delegated the authority for administration of A WEP to the Chief of

NRCS Congress established A WEP to assist potential partners in focusing conservation

assistance from existing programs administered by NRCS in defmed project areas to achieve

high priority natural resource objectives while leveraging resources from non-federal sources

TSID has submitted a proposal to NRCS for assistance to address priority natural resource

concerns through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQJP) in the Whychus Creek

area ofCentral Oregon TSID is an eligible partner entity and meets statutory requirements of

AWEP to carry out activities specified in this agreement and work with eligible program

participants to help implement conservation practices on eligible lands as defined in this

agreement

Partnership Agreement 68middot0436-1-075

NRCS is the lead Federal agency for conservation on private land In carrying out this role

NRCS provides voluntary conservation planning technicaland financial assistance to farmers

ranchers and other landowners to address the natural resource concerns on the Nations private

and nonfederalland Specifically if approved through a partnership agreement during fiscal

year 2011 NRCS may provide financial and technical assistance through the Environmental

Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to eligible program participants within a defined project area

HI Purpose

The purpose of this agreement is to establish a partnership framework for cooperation between

NRCS and TSID on activities that involve implementation of conservation practices on eligible

producers lands

1V Responsibilities

A NRCS agrees to 1 Carry out and implement in good faith the provisions of this agreement

2 Provide on an annual basis technical and financial assistance through the

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) as requested by the TSID and as

available to eligible producers located within the approved project area Note NRCS

reserves the right and authority to reduce or discontinue program benefits to support

this partner agreement based uponmiddotfunds availability changes in agency priorities or

inability ofTSID to deliver resources or provisions ofthis agreement EQIP program

contracts obligated with producers as a result ofthis partnership agreement are

assured of funding for the entire length ofthe approved contract and not subject to

provisions of this partnership agreement regarding fund availability

3 Implement and administer EQIP to the extent possible to address identified AWEP

project natural resource concerns Such assistance includes use of recommendations

from TSID for evaluation and ranking ofprogram applications and expeditious

obligation of approved contracts for eligible farmers and ranchers to facilitate timely

implementation ofpractices within the project area

4 Provide annual review and recommendations to TSID regarding the project to ensure

success and implementation of conservation practices related to producer program

contracts

p4J


B TSID agrees to

1 Carry out and implement in good faith the provisions ofthis agreement

2 Comply with NRCS guidelines (General Manuall20-408) regarding the disclosure of

information protected by the Freedom oflnfonnation Act (FOIA- 5 USC 552(a)) and

Privacy Act provisions Infonnation protected in participant case files shall not be

disclosed to the general public except in cases approved by the FOIA Officer The

FOIA Officer should be contacted ifquestions arise whether to release infonnation

covered by the FOIA and Privacy Act pursuant to one ofthe exemptions under the

Acts

3 Provide NRCS with a well-defined description and boundary ofthe project area for

which NRCS program benefits are to be offered

4 Provide NRCS with any additional details beyond their application that would

constitute a detailed Plan ofWork for delivery of technical or financial resources to

be provided by TSID The plan shall identify specific resources to be provided by the

partner or other cooperating entities and the project timeframe for delivery of said

resources to NRCS program participants

5 Provide NRCS with a project Budget ifdifferent from the application which

identifies other funding sources which support technical or financial resources

identified in Item 3

6 Ifdifferent from the application provide NRCS with the annual amount ofprogram

funding specifically needed to address identified priority natural resource concerns

within the project area

7 Provide NRCS with a list ofsuggested ranking criteria that couldbe used by the

agency for evaluation and ranking ofeligible producer program applications The

suggested criteria shall relate to the A WEP project area objectives to address priority

natural resource concerns

8 Ifdifferent from the application provide NRCS with a list ofagency-approved

conservation practices the partner would like offered through available NRCS

programs The partner shall also provide NRCS with recommendations for payment

percentages practice implementation costs and data needed by the agency to develop

practice payment schedules to support the priority needs within the project area 9 Provide the NRCS agency representative with semimiddotannual and annual reports during

the project period and a final project report that documents project accomplislunents

and goals achieved Such reports shall include activities and services that are

provided by ltPartner Namegt to program participants to help achieve objectives ofthe

agreement Reports shall also address partner efforts to monitor and evaluate

implementation ofconservation practices included in NRCS program contracts within

r41


the approved project area Additional report requirements if appropriate and

included in the AWEP proposal shall iriclude A Numbers ofNRCS program participants assisted andor cooperating in the

project effort

B Acres ofproject area addressed in NRCS program contracts andor extents of

conservation practices implemented in the project area each year and for the

final project report

C Other partner or resource contributions from other agencies or organizations

which help implement provisions ofthe agreem~t and further project

objectives

D Assistance provided to program participants to help meet local State andor

Federal regulatory requirements

E Information related to efforts to address water quality water conservation and

other natural resource related concerns

F Efforts to provide innovation in applying conservation methods and delivery

ofNRCS programs including new outcome-based performance measures and methods

G Efforts related to renewable energy production energy conservation

mitigating effects ofclimate change adaptation or fostering carbon

sequestration

H Efforts for outreach to and participation of beginning farmers or ranchers socially disadvantaged fanners or ranchers limited resource farmers or

ranchers and Indian Tribes within the project area

10 Provide outreach to landowners in the identified area to encourage participation in

the A WEP program

11 Complete all associated activities identified in the proposal that are NOT funded by NRCS but are critical for the project success including but not limited to pipe

installation to replace open ditches

C It is mutually agreed upon by both parties

1 To cooperate in developing and implementing conservation plans that address priority

natural resource concerns in the defined project area

2 That the designated representative ofTSID and the designated representative ofNRCS

will cooperate to develop procedures to ensure good communication and coordination

at the various levels ofeach organization

3 NRCS and TSID and their respective agencies and offices will manage their own

activities and utilize their own resources including the expenditure of their own funds

in pursuing the objectives of this agreement Each party will carry out its own


separate activities in a coordinated and mutually beneficial manner Each party

therefore agrees that it will assume all risk and liability to itself its agents or

employees for any injury to person or property resulting in any manner from the

conduct ofits own operations and the operations of its agency or employees under this

agreement and for any loss cost damage or expe~e resulting at any time from failure to exercise proper precautionsmiddotofitself its own agency or its own employees while

occupying or visiting the projects under and pursu~t to this agreement The

Governmentbulls liability shalt be governed by the provisions ofthe Federal Tort Claims

Act (28 USC 2671-80)

4 That nothing in this agreement shall obligate either NRCS or TSID to obligate or

transfer any funds or financial assistance that NRCS may provide to eligible program

participants Specific work projects or activities that may involve the transfer of

funds services or property among TSID and offices ofNRCS will require execution

of separate agreements and be contingent upon the availability ofappropriated funds

or technical services Such activities must be independently authorized by appropriate

statutory authority This agreement does not provide such authority Negotiation

execution and administration of each such agreement must comply with all applicable statutes and regulations

5 This agreement does not restrict either party from participating in similar activities

with other public or private agencies or organizations and individuals D Contacts

Three Sisters Irrigation District Natural Resources Conservation Service Marc Thalacker State Office Meta Loftsgaarden P0Box2230 1201 NE Uoyd Blvd Ste 900 Sisters OR 97759 Portland OR 97232 541-549-8815 503-414-3236

Field Office Tom Bennett 625 SE Salmon A venue Suite 4 Redmond Oregon 977 56 541-923-4358 X 123

V Duration

This agreement takes effect upon the signature of NRCS and TSID and shall remain in effect

through September 30 2015 This agreement may be extended or amended upon request of

either NRCS or TSID as long as the extension or amendment does not extend this agreement

beyond 5 years from date ofexecutiltnmiddot Either NRCS or TSID may terminate this agreement

with a 60 day written notice to the other party Note Although statute limits this A WEP partner

p4b


agreement to a maximum of5 years NRCS EQIP program contracts with producers may extend

beyond this period oftime

VI Provisions

A Employees ofNRCS shall participate in efforts under this agreement solely as

reptesentatives of the United States To this end they shall not p~cipate aS directors

officers ~SID employees or otherwise serve or hold themselves middotout as repr~entatives of

TS1D NRCS employees shall also not assist TSID with efforts to lobby Congress or to

raise money through fund-raising efforts Further NRCS employees shall report to their

immediate supervisor any negotiations with TSID concerning future employment and

shall refrain from participation in efforts regarding such actions until approved by the agency

Accepted by

Signed 1V~uttv Date _5+-~Lf-jzo=-+-(__ RONALD ALV D middot cflnC State Conservationist J Oregon Natural Resources Conservation Service

Date s-301 ~ 7

~ 2011 TSID AWEP SCHEDULE

Year 2012 - 2013 ltqshy

~ owmiddotner Total Turnout Meter

Water Size Size Rights

Patterson 6100 8 HALOiJSEK DITCH 14

Halousek 40 6

Hoff 16 6

middotGrisham 476 6

Pr~te 14 6

Falls 55 6 6

Slagle 145 6 6

Sub total 13760 FRYREAR 12 12

Baker 1400 6 6 VanVactor 1500 6 6 Kimberly 1200 6 6 Wattenburg 2050 6 6 Bartolotta middot 2000 6 6

Vetterlein 17060 14

Apregan 5110 6 6 middotMansker 6300 6 6 KOA middot middot 1000 6 6

Sisters Rodeo 2000 6 6

Herring 4200 6 6 Koos 2300 6 6 Rubbert 2500 6 6 Keith 1650 6 6

Sub total 50270 Total middot 70130

-shy

Pipe Size

8 14 6 6 6 6 4 6

12 6 6 6 6 6

6 6

6 6 6 6 6 6

offtof Pipe Turnout Pipe Costs Costs

2000 $14360 $3400 4300 $70864 $3400

$3400 $3400

7400 $81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$166920 $47600

-middot -shy --shy

Solid Set Wheelines Pivot 2011 2012 Costs Costs Costs

$22840 $17760 $22840 $74264

$31464 $31464

$3400 $3400

$81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$28550 $28550 $3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$31464 $51390 $214520 $82854

) 2011 TSID AWEP SCHEDULE ~

Year 2012 - 2013 ~ Owner Total Turnout Meter


Bartlemay Mansker 111 6 6

Miller 174 6 6

Cornick 71 6 6

Stengal 107 6 6

Evered 153 6 6

LazyZ Partners 1056

BIG POND 16 16 middot

KCyrus 37445 Cinder Pit 587

B-DITCH 16 16 Fetrow 15 6 6

Stotts 16 14 14 Friend 75 10 10 Hullc Koops 305 18 18 Baker 47 10 10

6 6

ARNOLD 6 6

Arnold Olson 989 12 12 Elsbeth Prop 125 16 16 Nulton 10 Wildershy 4 Knott 14 Cochran 14 6 6 Sub Total 6 6

6 6 Total 89269

Pipe offt of Pipe On Farm Sizemiddot Pipe Costs Costs

12 7700 $85008 12 138750 $3400 12 217500 $3400 12 88750 $3400 12 133750 $3400 12 191250 $3400

12 400000 $44160

16 4670 $51557 $3400 10 1942 $21440 $3400 8 500 $5520 $3400

$3400 16 II 3307 $54499 $3400 4 1200 $3400 1086 22600 $3400

Solid Set Wheelines - Costs Costs

cG0lt -lti~ 1a-~rmiddotmiddotmiddot

8 3951 $3400 ~ 12 10491 $3400 8 3000 $3400 6 8700 $3400 6 $3400 8 5280 $3400 14 1000 $3400

6 500 $3400 6 700 $3400 6 800 $3400

88041 $262184 $74800

Pivot 2012

Costs

2013

2011 TS10 AWEP SCHEDULE

Year 2012 - 2013

Owner Total

Water

Rights

Keeton B1 145 Keeton B2

Keeton B3

Schaad 1485 Wiltse 415 Herold 28 Brockway 42

TUMALO FARMS 3303

FRONK 2405

Sub Total

Total 9758

Total Association Car 41765

Total Acres 200265

Turnout Meter Pipe offt of

Size Size Size Pipe

6 6 6 1100

6 6 6 600

6 6 6 100

6 6 12 7000

6 6 6

6 6 6

6 6 6 500

6 6 6

8 8 8 4860

16 16 16 10 4670

6 4 4

6 6 4 1200 14 14 1086 22600 10 10i 8 42630

85260

Pipe Turnout Solid Set

Costs Costs Costs

$3400

$3400

$3400 $77280 $3400

$3400

$3400 $1750 $3400

$3400

$164317 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400 $3400

$243347 $44200 middotr7~iy middot

$486693 $88400

2011 TSID AWEP SCHEDULE Year 2012-2013

owner

middotFrench

M Cyrus

CEMENT DITCH

Mansker

Swaner

Boyer

lA Keeton

IZDITCH

IMcKeever

Poole

Barclay

King

ITewalt

BROWN DITCH

I Redfield

lsub Total

I Total

Total A middot Can

Total Acres

Total Turnout Meter PJRe ~ Water Size Size Size Pipe

Rights

135 16 16 16 1100

1343 16 16 16 _sectQQ 16 6 16 100

6 6 16 6009

32 6 6 16

40 6 16 6

40 16 16 6 ~ 1155 16 16 6

18 18 18

116 116 116 10 11240

16 16 14 14

20 16 16 14 1200

17 114 114 11086 22600

16 110 110 Is 3951

16118 118 112 ~1 110 Ito 18 ~ 16 16 16 ~

147 16 16 16

112 112 18 -~ 116 116 114 1_QQQ

7288 _72JJ_

41765 151542

200265

~ Turnout Solid Set

Costs_ ~ts Costs

$3400

$3400

j1400 11FI~i1t poundftf $149744 $3400

$3400

$3400

_g400

_g4oo

_$400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400 10 llll $3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

~ ~000

$299489 ~00

2011 TSID AWEP SCHEDULE

Year 2012-2013

Owner Total Turnout Meter Pipe offt of Pipe Turnout Solid Set Water Size Size Size Pipe Costs Costs Costs

Rights Frankel 15 6 6 6 1100 $6809 $3400

Moen 8 6 6 6 600 $3714 $3400

Moen 8 6 6 6 100 $61~ $3400 Lamphere 8 6io 6 6 1500 $9285 $3400 Baldwin 5 6 6 6 $3400 Angel 30 6 6 6 $3400 Maxwell 74 6 6 6 SOD $1750 $3400 Biggers 5 6 6 6 $3400 Crenshaw 58 8 8 $3400

Stephenson 7 16 16 16 10 4670 $82784 $3400

Booras 8 6 4 4 $3400 FampL 11 6 6 4 1200 $4200 $3400

McMonagle 3 14 14 1086 22600 $181819 $3400 Peterson 477 10 10 8 3951 $24457 $3400 Vendetti 623 18 18 12 10491 $96860 $3400

Parker 4 10 10 8 3000 $18570 $3400

Molesworth 9 6 6 6 8700 $53853 $3400 6 6 6 $3400

MAIN CANAL 12 12 8 5280 $32683 $3400 Keeton 173 16 16 14 1000 $21960 $3400

Gillespie 56 $3400

Sub Total $3400

Total 440 64692 $539363 $74800

Total Association Car 41765 129384 $149600

Total Acres 200265

Appendix C

Letter amp Documents of Commitment

Janl1aty 1ti2ot2

MareThala~Rer

~f~~~~~MQ~~M $l~l~T$~middot PR ~7Yf3~

JR middot pn~ ases E fSfOMain CanaLPimiddotmiddoti Ph middotmiddot middot4-6i

OeatMatb

c~r a~ Sheri Abhott ~ireclQrltqf FnClnG~ Deschutes Hiver Odnsehtancy

Appe-ndmiddotix D

Official Resolution

Three Sisters Irrigation District P 0 Box 2230 Sisters Oregon 97759 541-549-8815 (tel) 541-549-8070 (fax)

Three Sisters Irrigation District

RESOLUTION NO 2012-01


WHEREAS The Board of Directors of the Three Sisters Irrigation District has reviewed and is in support of the Three Sisters Irrigation District 2012 Bureau of Reclamation WaterSmart Water and Energy Efficiency Grant Application

WHEREAS Three Sisters Irrigation District is capable of providing the amount of funding with in-kind contributions specified in the funding plan and

WHEREAS Three Sisters Irrigation District will work with the Bureau of Reclamation to meet all established deadlines for entering in to a cooperative agreement

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors agrees and authorizes this resolution to approve and support this grant application and project

NOW THEREFORE the Manager Marc Thalacker is authorized empowered and directed to execute and deliver in the name and on behalf of district the Grant Agreement ifso awarded by Bureau of Reclamation

DATED February 7 2012

Don Boyer President

Pattie Apregan Vice President

Thayne Dutson Secretary

ATTEST

Appendix E

BudgetEquipment lnkind amp Hourly

Pipe amp Materials Spreadsheets

TSID MAIN CANAL PIPELINE PROJECT PHASES 4-6

middotBUDGET ITEM DESCRIPTION COMPUTATION BOR NFWFNFF OWEB PELTON FUND TSID

$Unit Unit Quantitv TOTAL COST WATERSMART and other

SALARIES AND WAGES ManagerAdminstration $3385 hr 300 $10155 $ 10155 Office Administration $1200 hr 400 $4800 $ 4800 Construction Foreman $2000 hr 2500 $50000 $ 50000 Equipment Operator $1700 hr 2500 $42500 $ 42500 Equfpment Operator $1700 hr 2500 $42500 $ 42500 Equipment Operator $1700 hr 2500 $42500 $ 42500 Equipment Operator $1700 hr 2500 $42500 $ 42500 Equipment Operator $1700 hr 2500 $42500 $ 42500 Equipment Operator $1700 hr 2500 $42500 $ 42500

FRINGE BENEFITS ManagerAdminstration $1167 hr 300 $3501 $ 3501 Office Administration $100 hr 400 $400 $ 400 Construction Foreman $803 hr 2500 $20075 $ 20075 Equipment Operator $223 hr 2500 $5575 $ 5575 Equipment Operator $223 hr 2500 $5575 $ 5575 Equipment Operator $223 hr 2500 $5575 $ 5575 Eguipment Operator $223 hr 2500 $5575 $ 5575 Equipment Operator $223 hr 2500 $5575 $ 5575 Equipment Operator $223 hr 2500 $5575 $ 5575

Sub-total $377381 -shy middotmiddotshy $ 377381

BackfillFuelSuppliesLegalInsurance Backfill Material $ 8 Cu Ft 150000 $1200000 $ 1 200000 Fuel $350 gallon 75000 $262500 $ 262500

Supplies $25000 $ 25000 InsuranceLegal $30000 $ 30000

TSID OWNED EQUIPMENT Excavator 450 $ 100 Per Hour 2000 $200000 $ 200000 D-8 Cat $ 125 Per Hour 1000 $125000 $ 125000 Front End Loader JD 844J $ 90 Per Hour 2000 $180000 $ 180000 On Road Dump Truck $ 35 Per Hour 2000 $70000 $ 70000 On Road Dump Truck $ 35 Per Hour 2000 $70000 $ 70000 On Road Dump Truck $ 35 Per Hour 2000 $70000 $ 70000

Off Road Dump Truck Cat 735 $ 85 Per Hour 1500 $127500 $ 127500 Backhoe $ 22 Per Hour 800 $17600 $ 17600

RENTAL EQUIPMENT HOPE Welding Machine $ 1100 Per day 60 $66000 $ 66 000 Water Truckmiddot $ 63 Per hr 220 $13860 $ 13860

__ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _Sub-total 2~__4~~ _ ~~-middotmiddot $ 79860 $ - $ - $ 2 377 soo

p~

TSID MAIN CANAL PIPELINE PROJECT PHASES 4-6 bull

BUDGET ITEM DESCRIPTION I SUPPLIESMATERIALS

middot middot42 SDR 32SHDPE pipe 63 psi $

middot42 SDR17 HDPEpipe 125psi $

48 SDR-17 HDPE pipe 125 psi $

54 SDR 17HDPE pipe 125 psi $

Combination AirNac Valves APCO or Waterman $

middot Pressmiddotore-ReiiefValves Cla~Val $

middotRiser ampSaddle Assemblies including JCM clamshells $ middot Clamshell tum ouis $ 16 Butterfl_i Valves for Turnouts $

16 Meters for Turnouts $

TOTAL DIRECT COSTS Environmental Compliance Contingency

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS

COMPUTATION I $Unit Unit Quantity

62 feet 14000 115 feet 3000 135 feet 7000 170 each 4000

1000 each 18 4000 each 4

3000 each 18

4000 each 5

2000 each 5

2000 each 5 Sub-total

Sub-total

BOR NFWFNFF OWEB TOTAL COST WATERSMART and other

$868000 $ 500000 $ 58000 $ 250000 $ $345000 $ 95000 -$ $945000 $ 500 000 $ 155000 $680000 $ 500000 $ 30 000

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $100()0

$2966000

$5800841 $15000

$100000

$5915841

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $10_000

$ 1 500000 $ 216 000 $ 500000

$15000

$ 1500000 $ 310860 $ 500000

$

$

$

$

PELTON FUND TSID

60 000 250000 290000

150000

750000 $ -

$10000000

750000 $ 2854981

Grant Totals

BOR Other

OWEB PELTON

TSID

$ I $

$ $

$

1500000 310860 I 500000 7Sooool

2854981

FEDERAL FEDERAL

NON-FEDERAL I NON-FEDERAL

NON-FEDERAL

TOTAL FEDERAL TOTAL NON FEDERAL

$ $

1810860 4104981 $

rr-b

Appendix F

Save Water Smiddotave Energy

E(Q~-tive Sunnnary

lrriSfcitLcm in Ote~on [s an ett~rgy iMtebsiva industry The Ptenfial for ene~~Y ~nshy

servatron imiddots substantial both bif imreSiJJi) etrer~y effieiettqy and q)tihcreasJng

W~t~ros~~ ~ffici~ncent~L A number ofmiddotcoqserJalion ])Jrojects that tnignt bcent con~1~~~E1d

by inclividual farms could middotprovide $igll(ticaot eoetS9savins while at-the same

ifrne Increasing net farm income awinbullwin $illiat1Qrt )1e ~cQnpmtc b~nmiddotefits of such prcjecentp for1ridiyenLtitJal fatrti~ ate clear and the cost ofene~gyconsmiddoterveq is

often less than thecost of genec~~tirrg new etw~rgy

Programs fortecfinieal ~no fin9nciciJ -asststsmce t() promote suchon~farnr energy

cons6rV8tilll ptofecenttsare avaUabJethrough several a~~nci~amp Mtf putillc lnt~rest

organizationsbpfpariiGipatlon in thomiddotseprogramSmiddotlrtas been limited The Save

Water middotampltwe gh(lr_gy initiatiYeis designed to make in~flyid(Jal fattneF$ more aware

oHhe availability -of tbos~ Jnc$ritive prcent~r~rn~ For Jhosa producers wh0 are inshy

tcentrestlid 1t wlu provide one-on-one assistance to lqenflfY gons~rvatiolil proJects

that rriight b$ svit~ble Or the ~_pedfic cirCumstances oflheir individual farms~

evaluate the potEmtial economic ben~tlts qt aft~rrtltttlie strategies and then facilishy

tate participation in the programs of interest to tbe prodveers

state TheSWSE )r0gtqft1 ~ill ~ddres$ jhesemiddotconcerns

IV The SWSE Program

The preceding $ectlon JIIustrated a-variety of opportunishy

ties for en_ergy ~lie W~ter cQnserve~Uon that could imshyprove the financfal bottom ln tor ioctividual farms The

central purpose ot the swse pro~ranJ i~ tq pr6mote ano faciUtate adoption of such strategiesmiddotby intere$tcentcf proshy

ducersTHiampsectigtn discusses-themiddotmofivatibn behind the

SW$i ptOQrati1r qiJJiin a WPfG3t User expe~lence

presmiddotents exampl~s of pr()ject sQbsiCii$S~ ahd outliires-lhe

SWSE organization and $trllcenthtre

Directecon-tDmio benefits and poteriHal friCinGb~i 5lbsimiddot

diesW9L11d app~ar to be natural incentives to adopt the kind$~fqcmseNit1pn Wi~~giesoYtlined in the preceding

section But a-ccetoihg tq t~~ 2003 C~nsu~ ot AQriculture

producers operaiing almost 80 of-th~ lrft~t~d land ~In

cgtr~9Pn hEYEl centi(ptesseo reluctance-tO implement-water conservation impr6vElment$ Tieirmiddotr~asons are tabulated

rn ttte acmiddotcamp~myill~rtabl-e

Clearly the PiQglistc9tic(itn was that ltitosts CGuld notbe justified or that finaliCing qfJmptoYefti~nts Was riot availshy

aQ1~ ( iehts 45 af)d 6 ) Producers expresslngtlfos~

concerns reJgttesented 49 ~ftlle iuigated acreaga in the

by provictJng itEtchnioa[advice OIllM middotcosis and benemsmiddotof c$Fisew~t1Cfrt amptrit~sectleS and facilitating access i o-stibslshy

dfesandfagtbr~bl~ lo9os~

The sWSE pJowamwillalso initiate a pubJicent inf~nnation

prq~t~m tqrlliampe ilwamiddotreJless and cnange Perceplionsmiddot

aboulmiddotcon$~roltti9t ptfc~le~s Tniswill be re1evanf for the 6of producers whowere concem elif ~~om reducing

cropyielq ormiddotquality fhe Jmptollements fn i rti~~iptt pfii_cbull fjces middotto b~ promoted Qy the SWSEprogram areactu~llyen

more )ike)Y tq improve crop yields Mditfonally the 1300

producers who do f9t- ooh~f~centr ~eitlSeNltjition a priority

mayhe influenced by exptgtsure tcUh~ bulleth~ctatlonal efforts

oHoe SIN$~ p~ograrn

I l$rll$WottbY tljat whil6gt 21 middotoHhemiddotfanns do nbf a~em

conservatkgtli improv~tn~gttlls a prioritythosemiddotfarms represhy

s~gtnt orify s ofthe irrigcJ~g acrll~ei SQ1aUmiddotfarrns may o~ less Jikely tOi initiate conservation ~r~~ic-e$

19

middotmiddot

U$er exp~rience

The typical user experieneemiddotwill proc~ec( thrcbil~lr fhl3~e

stagesmiddot

Awaxenbull$s

Individuals will be made aware ofth$ program throqgh

vendors ancftradcent ~ili ( OJ~tWQ~ks established by the

EJ1centr~y Trlf$l of Oregpri ~md SPA) themiddotCooperative

txtensipn sepiice lhe32 NRCSfielct offices-a_ctosmiddotstM

statetamLSWCD s

iritetested Individuals will access theprogram lbroJJgh

offices of the supporting agencies or visiJ JlteW~b~~ifeto

nnd Jnformationand relevant tihkS to JJrth11r middotinformlltion

CoUecling user rnfqrmaflqn ffte bttr~l~w)

B~ vi~lthi~ ~n NRC$ Qt $WQD field office the user can

tne$Mm~fQ~fsce with fndividuals1amiltar With Jhe SW$6

prqgram Who Will lead 1hemmiddotthFOUQh asgrl~s of ba~Jc questions ctesiQiJeQ middotto PiilpoitJt lb~ p~omnfis thai would

Qi3ncentfft e~Qh JJ~er Th~website expenence is much lik~ashywizardvihere the useranswers a $erie$middotbf )je_sH~ illes-

tions abo~Jt tbeirkri~atiprt op~tRUPb~

Presentaticm $ seltt~tipn Pt ~Yi(JIa~li

pr~gr~nits

FolloWitli ihe it~teryeniew theuser is presented withmiddota IJst

ofaitailable programs fh1=1ttlw field secttaft per$onti~s

rnatchEld~ to thelis~i bullmiddots idtet~s( lrrthmiddoteweb-based sysshy

tcentm (he ffi6$t relevant programs arelisted baseo orr the

user s responses Eachmiddotlist item ineluoesgtthcent progta~m

tftle1 a short d~Mription and a check~o~ t~qUhe user

Shcilld $~ect ifth~y fite ihterested in the program

amiddot~ceiVe dQta~il~~ ~Qmiddotcunents

Aft~f frJentlyen(ii9 WPich pr~~r~msmiddot ate of interest the ~roshy

teMh~ us~r isgiven detailed information andlor applica~

tion forms for eachmiddotof the~ s~teoted p16Qtj~Jnslfmiddotth$ web~

site is used ~ ooelirJlerit delivery is ~ tQtnj)inatiGn of

screen dl~play doWfilo9(1able pdremail delivery and

linksto program websites

Fmiddotollow~up middotinteiView

Loca vendP(S1 $ilMQ~ J5roVf9e~s Ar tr~Md ~W$E staff

will drift aPr-ellmiA~I)l P~li pr eamiddotoh lP~Qposed u~~dertakshy

i~ ltiGlYI1l1J~ l(~f~iled clesrdplforis oflhe ~circumstances requited hardware_Jabor and other m~ces$$tpoundtnpiJl~middot

Information 11eeded oormiddoteatcyllt~te pot~fltfaJ wfJt~r alq en~

e~~IY savin9sJs -a[So P~t~iired

P-elhnlnary PJa)l t~vlew

fhose ageneies middotsupportingthe $l~cent1fic Ui1dert9krJi~$

beinJ CQI3Siderecl Will tev~wthe pl~l) forcol)fOtmlty to

their owr-H1bicentcentHv~$Stiltf proeedtlres the reNiew proces$

i(li[i1Qlsmiddotdetaileo eslirnalesoi potential energy $nd w~t~t lteonservation

-~t 11middotmiddot ti ~p lCa 91

Appltcatibnlorrns arethen cQmpleJ~d b9- th~ fnter~$tecJ

individual or v~ndot w~o a$$lSJ~uP$-fKom middottt tr~ined lotal

seiJiGe prqV(d$ f(RQS staff dr SWS~ bullc-ontractor

mplcenttncentntation of the plan istheresponslbilitYmiddotof he

indiYiduamiddotl user~ vendor or local seMce provldir Tlle final step ismiddotthe centornple~iQf) of the clo~e9Jf to-rrtr~ with assisshy

fane as nE~~9d from parficipating s-gency staff

Th~ b$itr qutcomes otthe user exp-erienceare

i ) $UQ~Steif system 1mprovernEmts

( fi ) atJ a$seastnefi qf~SSQCi$d- GQStS

( Ji imiddot a sllrnmary ofa~alltlble centq~t off$~ts

( iv ) an -estimate ofannualenergysavings

( v ) ah estilT(afe -of energy cost savings to the farm

20 pho-

Qoe Key rcole of~he SWSB pe~sonnel will

The $WSE program vJiU providean informational clearshy

ingnoy~e throJJgb middotwJiioh interested producers will bullhave

sect3asy apcesects tointormatioJtabptitv~riofJs ~ubsioies for

on-farm firicentf~Y qnt( w~t~f centcent0$etyenatioJj)lreurolj~qts middot(s ~e

table bullorr tfieioUowing Pl9a ) Sbme ofthe exrnplesmiddotof

conservationopportunitiesmiddotpresented earlier irrctuded

estimated proJect costs_plon9 With estimates of middotsubsi shy

I diesthat WoOJCJ otfset ~hos~ tosectt~ to tbe fatrtr The middottable berow reseintsrrtotemiddot~ooo -Jet middot iiifdrmaffmiddotmiddotmiddotabo t the~middot _P middotmiddot ~ p e middot QJL JL sourcesmiddotand deri~ation 6rth~se example sObsidissmiddot

j As indicatedlhElsubsidtesiWiiJ be clerivetl from multiple

agenciesIn bullsome asesorilymiddot-on-eiagenqy mlghl bemiddotlnshy

volvedt in othercasesseveral agenclesmight partiGipate

Jolott~ t~~ sUfgt~i~~Slt~irt~~le ftorn middota ampiil~ll p~tpcentntas~ ofproJect ~Qsect~s ~r$ a~ r~R~~~-~~middot~ofOfiAAt(6~J~fn~ziJ$~ ) to 100 Or JiJ(j)re Of1he prbjettd()sfs regthehs(ibgf9ie$ for addin9~ VtrOmiddottomiddotan alder pirmp wotfild middotoft~et fiill ~roshy

Jee_tmiddotcentflst$ bull

Asos~ai ~ fm middotWich sobsid middot middot te middotorlt middot IF middot llilemiddot middot middot igtte middot bdo ~t~il~~rtllOllemiddotqllestions ~lllq p~esmiddotent answershil~ middotmiddot middot r-l g rn bullbull leSfL ~tip Ga Loa ~middot 11

siitralibn~ i)Fe~1smiddot(lty what tfi~ ~lligt~icft~s middotwebll amSurit to lcentr~d ~i6~ -~~~~i~~ ~ircum~t~rid~~ and middotobjecfivoesof and wbat ls reqwrecLtOltquaHtyfor llile subsidies i~ a ~comshy inferested-middotpf~dU~$bull middot

plex_ il~Ji3stion

21

1

l

Ptogrammatic str~J~gi~s A prelimToary li$~(11S ofavailable iilcsotive programs

N N

~ ~

)_)

~- middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot---middot--middot--middot--middotshy

~organlzation and M~nag~mei1t

T(l~middot SW~E ~rof1JPIll J$ ~ pqop~~i~Jiy~centffoJt(nVqlvio~ a

parthlrsh[p ofpliblic irifer~rst orgarilza1ibns govemmecf

agencies utilities and bull1rrigation -dfstticts The-sponsoring

organizafionsare listed inmiddotthe s[debar

Primal) workiog partnerships will invoJve ufilities i(rig~shy

tion dfstriCts ndividugll f~rrrtemiddotr$- tr~d~ aJfie_s Qnci s~~J$

tg~lCf$5

A stEienf~- cent(iibrnitT~e i MveJegtjiingtheppJ1Gles aomiddotd~tgt3shy

$ic~$rn~ofs pHfil lniH~tlY$ Qo~middot ptitf~tlrgtfi) sectf~tf pe~~n will be assi9ned t6 tlie prbjecl middotWhoseSdle PtJr_psse JS to cooroinlt~te ~he Save ~llergy Save VVt~r IOitiatfve Th_is

per~q_n_ ~~rvitt~ ~$ tbe tcentchritcenta[ aoltl aebnlrrtstthte Jeadet wifl be familiar With the energy and conservafion

programsof all pa~icipattng orga~izatkms and will work

witbcothetfedpoundral trlbldstate+ao~ ene~gy andconseryashy

tkm cent rqariizafj~gt rt~ l9 fo~r CPrnmuiimiddotic~~ton ai9 eaJcentashytion and pmiddotrovlde information needed fo ltachieve enetgy

amtcohserva~ibn outeomes The coordinator isa point

ofQonl~cno answer qu~stions ~riel dlregt participatfn~

organizafions to the appropriate resou t-ce

ThewebsJtewiJI Ptesenfthe catalog ofavailabfe proshy

grqjis and pro9ram contacUnformation for each oftne

v~riiitJ$middot I $~ve W~Jer sav~middot Erwrgy ptogt~m~ lt will be

design~d heip the vser ohoo$$ whi~h middotprogram$ th~y middot

should consider and facifitate communication with and

application to thevarious programs It will also inCiude

bull A universal application form that will be the bashysis fot initial asscentssrrfent of opporfunifi13s and proshy

gramsot retevanoe le-the applicant

Al9Nithfijlgt i9 ~Ypllf~t~(h$ prcpo$~(1 Ptojectbull ( middotcaJculators lor estim-ating energy and water coii~_centrvatioJt J

bull A lgtcreening to9i for cootsJfnaticm ~f reviews by sCJpshyportiqg_agencies to avoid ouplicafioo pf efforLor gtUPshypori middot

$~~~bull~vmiddot -~on~i-~middot~fClfipm

thewebsitewill not tnainlafn orstbte any l nformation

from ~he interview th~t conneGf$ theinput to_a partoutiir

p$rEiofi fnls middotcent~ii~tralnt ~(Levi~t~s -the ciskof riJ~$1(19

canfidentfaJ loftlrrn~ti911 if the $~lyen_et~ is ~otrrpr$mised An l)q~itipn~L ~on$fti1Jencemiddot iPlhiilqn~e fne 1JSI7i le~VFJS the

sitemiddot if they want fo view tne-list of selectedmiddotprograms

ttrey must rEHh~ lhelntefliiew pnlcess

AU iiiJ~t~centtTih iAifth middotthe wilb$)H~ dtJrli~gthcentJflt~tVieW ~Jid

prEgtgram selecenttioo pbasa$ fill oe ll6rle bullovet HTTPS

(secure BnP )middotwhidh will artow theusettGtransmit

middotconfidential information with confidenoe Ttii~ reqLiire~

ment wili Fl~~~$sft~te purphjrseqf fiS~~urtey (~rtincate

fr)m middot~ trl)~ted ptc)vider bull ( ~g~ gtierl$iQn)

23

~middot

03s-chol~smiddot ~amiddotsfiimiddot ltand middotseveral dilttlcts inmiddot fh~ Ufper basiri

a~~ qmiddotndetcent9DSliler$tiongrth~ middotPJt~kprPJ~~

TJte -OWer ll~$t~_~~$ IJ~$1~~ 1b~

A SWSE pilot program ~is planned fortheDeschtJtes Bashy

sin rhe Steering committe6 Wilfselect SpeGiftG irrigation

disfdcts and irrig_ators interestemiddotct iA particlp~ting with

State ~)Jd FeQeta) 9olternJneflt ~get)Ci~$middot ~nfl e[ectdClt

utiUtles tnat ~are Within ePA 3M ETO s~tvicent~ area)middot $~~

lecti~gtn will babasedon currerli ener~JYand water usemiddot

tdentifiable s1rateg)es for conservatlon potential ecoshy

nomic beii$fits 9iidenergysavif1QS tit identifiedltstrat~

gi~s opportwli(l$s fot-leverag~ t4nditl9 J9 sqppprtlne identlfled middotstrate~ies and tti~ resolrces neeiled to irhpleshy

menUbe sfr~tegies

T~tl la$~l2 tq ~e trnmiddotpettferi~~cl it t~- Pllqt p(o$Jt~rrr wili

inctludfr(h~ middotfQIJJfWin~

-~ Mark~tttrii pt~grartt usiq~ amprocl1ures MWspaper ads radiospots1 newsreleases~ web site middotmiddotcontent ~tT~ otfuw m~~rIs ~~~-~P~r9Pri~e~ M~trk~ting)yiJ ~ Dttll~s lmiddotrrigaUob DJstrb~t (TJlIP) fhe responsi13iiltyen ofthe program lJaarampklalorwith tb~ ~~$l~i~hcente otJrtfitgtttsJ=~ ~tliff

bull Oeyenelopa landownerappHcafion fbrmaUhatwill ptqylltfe tbcent-te~ujred ttat~ fpr il[llr~p~~t~ PtQ~fr~OIsmiddot The -goais to have~ oneforrn fbat the Jlmdownermlls otJt fpr nitt~lllcentr~~nins pYrpos~sect ilriid rot~iafiipP-llQllshytfon for alttbe potential programs

bull P~vetqp middot lti Viteb~sJte to middotproVidemiddotboth pUOUcentity ano generaimiddotinformaHon and to mSflteavailabJe i nteracbull tive ~ppicentatJoii lottn~

bull Provide trainingwodltshopsand -educational rtiaterishyaJs fGr tecbriicentlt~) $upjl0i1 people whowilf be directly involved fn illiiplementatlon or tne pr(lfl riim

Upon compl~flori Of-fhe Pilot projl3centt the bullext~nttoWhich

I acliVitte$ WEte centOrll[let$o as plartned will beassessed A

summatiyebullevaluation will present a before and after aoaysis to docament the effectiveness and lessons

learned from ihe ptcentject This evelu$~iottwiJI d~rtt9hmiddot

strateuro) tftemiddotvallle ofthe prqj~ct to fun~centr$ arrd the O$h111lu~i 1 riity and it Vvi)l i)roYllle ~irecenttip(1 for continUatiRrt of the work The Oanesmiddotlrrjgation District in the lowerI j

middot middot

e)(tenslVe rel~vaot ~xperi~ricent~ trompreviouS G6n~arva

lion efforts-to facilitate implementation ottne -SWSE proshy

g-ram On average t 0513 acreteet of wateris puft~Ped

upto 46 miles from tme Columbia River lifted amiddotmaxishy

mum oftt96 feet (and dfstiibufed through a system (if

buried pipelinef ~nergy J1$ei~ tMr~for~ qrsifemiddot$lJ~secttan

flal

TDIO is currently middotconducting an energyaudif for its enfir~

_pumpingsystem as part of-a BPAfQnded woJecf lo immiddot pJemMtseterltificirrigatiort scheduling (S fS) to save

energy andwater on ssb(l atres over 10_yeatfl~rig~

Fqr th~ PJrplgtscents oHtu~t RrtljeCtttret$WIii b~ ~bb teiEimemiddotr

try fiQW met~rsat Jarp tl)rnmiddototJfsOsed to monitor water

deHiM~riell and on-farm us~ The project will takeadvaoshytage of the existing Integrated FrtiftProductionNetwork

( 1F Pnet) ofwealherstations that delivers the

25l

l

I

I he factors of p-artkuiarinta~~st tor implernenting a Jiilotweather data via telemetcy to the_growers per-senal

prcfgram in these eigflt dfstric ~r~ cornp_ufers

bullThe osa-of S$middot-can r$cliJte qiV~t~iiinS Pyen to lo _2pp_~rshy

middotcent wbU~ flrowirJJl hlgh middotquaHtr hi~h valtre crops A 10shy

percentwaler savlngs weuJd result-in aric average of

1051-acre fElet ofwater conserved Prevl-ousmiddot BPA -exshy

periern~ ha sectliowiJ lJEltNeen t~q $M 2~0 kWq$av~p pet acentre~~ c PJ~tentil ~otal s~vin~~ ofmiddotaaoboo to

1-21 O_ooomiddotkWi anriJ~liYshymiddotshy

TOcent t~bl~ lgt~loW tlcentiV~ 1frotn 1~cent 1lJl Jciliit amiddoto-R ampnd

bre_g6o WaJer Resourpes Departmen_t$tudy- summashy-

tizestheHdispositronof water diverted toeight priqeipal

irrigation districts in theUpper Deschutes basin bull

Of p~rtJoul~frtitll~re~t r~ tbe on~farrn LB$sesfampt $aco dfs)t~ S-Ptne middotlos$es ate anormalmiddotconsequence Ofirrrga-shy

tion Calculation ofthese no rmal middot losses was basedI middotshyon esplusmnfmatedalerage attainable middotefficfencles 50 middotfor

surfac-e ~yslemstana 6$ for pressunzed systems

SoblraCtil)9ihe norrnal losse~ ltorrt observed lasses ptomiddot

videsmiddot a rough estimate of exmiddot~ss bull ~omiddotsses~ fbe wsect~r

to Oe savetfby ihcr~a-~hg irriQ~tion effr~Jen_qiesotea~

scentna~l~ aJt~tnaQle E)ffl~lenc]e~--rh~~e ~txces$16$1gt~

teprScentnt tMpllt~n~l~ savltt9s Jrqfrl l11 -~fteqtlve middotcdriser

yatioit progt~tn in_ thes$ eiQhtdl$lriiltts

Thcentpol~_otiatmiddotfOr ~si~hifio~nt savin_gs-Qf both water

and ~gtower much ofthmiddote Iarid is surfaee irrigated and

districts itlaahare predomfnanlly sprinkler irrigated

havelow average efficienCies Itwas e~limat~d ~arshy

lie-r irt ttjis Pi_cliiedb_~J av~_ta~e artp Qc~l lijElt~y gtillV)ngs

woul~ be -1~a iltVYh per acentreov-er ~II elgnt diStficts

ThE $m~n Janrtampmiddotin thpoundi t13~Jon oo~ly ~iicentdmshy

passfng feWetJhan 5 acres are- of interastiferlhe

reaspn mentioned earlier - that small farms tend to

put lower priority on bullconservatkm Thelow on~farm

effi~gtiendes of hose-listricfs would smiddoteern 1o reinshy

fqrce_fn~~t f+erq~~fio)i

The CentncJI OreQPfl IP Siphon Powar Project

( C 010middot provfdes an opportunity for pqtential-reshy

capture bullofl)~pass hydtopower

fh~r~t ar~ opportvrri-W~~ fgr ~onvet-tihfl tO grav~

tty _prfs$ftfilmiddotmiddotsY-Starn$ J nr=ltltiYseveral distriiitshy

owhetl Jaterals a~~ using elevation droOp (gravity )

tQ presampurizesleJivery linelimiddot

~ j

i I

26

27

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CoverPage ________________________________________________ 1-3

Assurances Form

Appendix E BudgetEquipment lnkind ampHourlyPipe amp Materials Spreadsheets_55-56

4-5

Title Page 6

Table of Contents 7

Technical Proposal 8-32

Budget Proposal 32-38

Budget Form 424C 39

Appendix A Project Maps 40-41

Appendix B AWEP On-Farm Spreadsheets amp Contract 42-52

Appendix C Letter amp Documents of Commitment 53

Appendix D Official Resolution 54

Appendix F Save Water Save Energy 57-66








8










9










10












11















12



annually

















13











14


20000acre ft30000acre ft = 6667



2500 acre ft30000 acre ft = 833








15















NA



Red Band Trout











16

















17













18





Yes












19














56)






20









21













22

















23
















24


















25






56)












Phase 5






Phase 4






26









27







No


No


Yes


Yes

28









29












30

middot






No


No



31












None to date




32












Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860



33


Budget Proposal










34











35







36










Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860




37


38

Appendix A

Project Maps

Appendix B


amp Contract




NRCS 68-0436-1075

Introduction








agreement

I Authority




II Background















agreement








HI Purpose



producers lands

1V Responsibilities


















contracts

p4J


B TSID agrees to








Acts




























r41




project effort






objectives









sequestration




the A WEP program




















Act (28 USC 2671-80)













V Duration






p4b




VI Provisions








Accepted by


Date s-301 ~ 7






Halousek 40 6

Hoff 16 6

middotGrisham 476 6

Pr~te 14 6

Falls 55 6 6

Slagle 145 6 6



Vetterlein 17060 14





-shy

Pipe Size

8 14 6 6 6 6 4 6

12 6 6 6 6 6

6 6

6 6 6 6 6 6


2000 $14360 $3400 4300 $70864 $3400

$3400 $3400

7400 $81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$166920 $47600

-middot -shy --shy


$22840 $17760 $22840 $74264

$31464 $31464

$3400 $3400

$81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$28550 $28550 $3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$31464 $51390 $214520 $82854





Miller 174 6 6

Cornick 71 6 6

Stengal 107 6 6

Evered 153 6 6

LazyZ Partners 1056





6 6

ARNOLD 6 6


6 6 Total 89269


12 7700 $85008 12 138750 $3400 12 217500 $3400 12 88750 $3400 12 133750 $3400 12 191250 $3400

12 400000 $44160

16 4670 $51557 $3400 10 1942 $21440 $3400 8 500 $5520 $3400

$3400 16 II 3307 $54499 $3400 4 1200 $3400 1086 22600 $3400



8 3951 $3400 ~ 12 10491 $3400 8 3000 $3400 6 8700 $3400 6 $3400 8 5280 $3400 14 1000 $3400

6 500 $3400 6 700 $3400 6 800 $3400

88041 $262184 $74800

Pivot 2012

Costs

2013


Year 2012 - 2013

Owner Total

Water

Rights


Keeton B3


TUMALO FARMS 3303

FRONK 2405

Sub Total

Total 9758


Total Acres 200265


Size Size Size Pipe

6 6 6 1100

6 6 6 600

6 6 6 100

6 6 12 7000

6 6 6

6 6 6

6 6 6 500

6 6 6

8 8 8 4860

16 16 16 10 4670

6 4 4

6 6 4 1200 14 14 1086 22600 10 10i 8 42630

85260


Costs Costs Costs

$3400

$3400

$3400 $77280 $3400

$3400

$3400 $1750 $3400

$3400

$164317 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400 $3400


$486693 $88400


owner

middotFrench

M Cyrus

CEMENT DITCH

Mansker

Swaner

Boyer

lA Keeton

IZDITCH

IMcKeever

Poole

Barclay

King

ITewalt

BROWN DITCH

I Redfield

lsub Total

I Total

Total A middot Can

Total Acres


Rights

135 16 16 16 1100

1343 16 16 16 _sectQQ 16 6 16 100

6 6 16 6009

32 6 6 16

40 6 16 6

40 16 16 6 ~ 1155 16 16 6

18 18 18

116 116 116 10 11240

16 16 14 14

20 16 16 14 1200

17 114 114 11086 22600

16 110 110 Is 3951

16118 118 112 ~1 110 Ito 18 ~ 16 16 16 ~

147 16 16 16

112 112 18 -~ 116 116 114 1_QQQ

7288 _72JJ_

41765 151542

200265

~ Turnout Solid Set

Costs_ ~ts Costs

$3400

$3400

j1400 11FI~i1t poundftf $149744 $3400

$3400

$3400

_g400

_g4oo

_$400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400 10 llll $3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

~ ~000

$299489 ~00


Year 2012-2013


Rights Frankel 15 6 6 6 1100 $6809 $3400

Moen 8 6 6 6 600 $3714 $3400


Stephenson 7 16 16 16 10 4670 $82784 $3400

Booras 8 6 4 4 $3400 FampL 11 6 6 4 1200 $4200 $3400


Parker 4 10 10 8 3000 $18570 $3400

Molesworth 9 6 6 6 8700 $53853 $3400 6 6 6 $3400


Gillespie 56 $3400

Sub Total $3400

Total 440 64692 $539363 $74800


Total Acres 200265

Appendix C


Janl1aty 1ti2ot2

MareThala~Rer



OeatMatb


Appe-ndmiddotix D

Official Resolution











Don Boyer President



ATTEST

Appendix E















p~












TOTAL PROJECT COSTS



1000 each 18 4000 each 4

3000 each 18

4000 each 5

2000 each 5


Sub-total


$868000 $ 500000 $ 58000 $ 250000 $ $345000 $ 95000 -$ $945000 $ 500 000 $ 155000 $680000 $ 500000 $ 30 000

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $100()0

$2966000

$5800841 $15000

$100000

$5915841

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $10_000

$ 1 500000 $ 216 000 $ 500000

$15000

$ 1500000 $ 310860 $ 500000

$

$

$

$

PELTON FUND TSID

60 000 250000 290000

150000

750000 $ -

$10000000

750000 $ 2854981

Grant Totals

BOR Other

OWEB PELTON

TSID

$ I $

$ $

$

1500000 310860 I 500000 7Sooool

2854981

FEDERAL FEDERAL


NON-FEDERAL


$ $

1810860 4104981 $

rr-b

Appendix F


E(Q~-tive Sunnnary

















IV The SWSE Program


























oHoe SIN$~ p~ograrn




19

middotmiddot

U$er exp~rience


stagesmiddot

Awaxenbull$s





statetamLSWCD s











pr~gr~nits







































20 pho-

















plex_ il~Ji3stion

21

1

l


N N

~ ~

)_)









tg~lCf$5

































23

~middot













menUbe sfr~tegies












middot middot







flal








25l

l

I









































~ j

i I

26

27








8










9










10












11















12



annually

















13











14


20000acre ft30000acre ft = 6667



2500 acre ft30000 acre ft = 833








15















NA



Red Band Trout











16

















17













18





Yes












19














56)






20









21













22

















23
















24


















25






56)












Phase 5






Phase 4






26









27







No


No


Yes


Yes

28









29












30

middot






No


No



31












None to date




32












Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860



33


Budget Proposal










34











35







36










Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860




37


38

Appendix A

Project Maps

Appendix B


amp Contract




NRCS 68-0436-1075

Introduction








agreement

I Authority




II Background















agreement








HI Purpose



producers lands

1V Responsibilities


















contracts

p4J


B TSID agrees to








Acts




























r41




project effort






objectives









sequestration




the A WEP program




















Act (28 USC 2671-80)













V Duration






p4b




VI Provisions








Accepted by


Date s-301 ~ 7






Halousek 40 6

Hoff 16 6

middotGrisham 476 6

Pr~te 14 6

Falls 55 6 6

Slagle 145 6 6



Vetterlein 17060 14





-shy

Pipe Size

8 14 6 6 6 6 4 6

12 6 6 6 6 6

6 6

6 6 6 6 6 6


2000 $14360 $3400 4300 $70864 $3400

$3400 $3400

7400 $81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$166920 $47600

-middot -shy --shy


$22840 $17760 $22840 $74264

$31464 $31464

$3400 $3400

$81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$28550 $28550 $3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$31464 $51390 $214520 $82854





Miller 174 6 6

Cornick 71 6 6

Stengal 107 6 6

Evered 153 6 6

LazyZ Partners 1056





6 6

ARNOLD 6 6


6 6 Total 89269


12 7700 $85008 12 138750 $3400 12 217500 $3400 12 88750 $3400 12 133750 $3400 12 191250 $3400

12 400000 $44160

16 4670 $51557 $3400 10 1942 $21440 $3400 8 500 $5520 $3400

$3400 16 II 3307 $54499 $3400 4 1200 $3400 1086 22600 $3400



8 3951 $3400 ~ 12 10491 $3400 8 3000 $3400 6 8700 $3400 6 $3400 8 5280 $3400 14 1000 $3400

6 500 $3400 6 700 $3400 6 800 $3400

88041 $262184 $74800

Pivot 2012

Costs

2013


Year 2012 - 2013

Owner Total

Water

Rights


Keeton B3


TUMALO FARMS 3303

FRONK 2405

Sub Total

Total 9758


Total Acres 200265


Size Size Size Pipe

6 6 6 1100

6 6 6 600

6 6 6 100

6 6 12 7000

6 6 6

6 6 6

6 6 6 500

6 6 6

8 8 8 4860

16 16 16 10 4670

6 4 4

6 6 4 1200 14 14 1086 22600 10 10i 8 42630

85260


Costs Costs Costs

$3400

$3400

$3400 $77280 $3400

$3400

$3400 $1750 $3400

$3400

$164317 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400 $3400


$486693 $88400


owner

middotFrench

M Cyrus

CEMENT DITCH

Mansker

Swaner

Boyer

lA Keeton

IZDITCH

IMcKeever

Poole

Barclay

King

ITewalt

BROWN DITCH

I Redfield

lsub Total

I Total

Total A middot Can

Total Acres


Rights

135 16 16 16 1100

1343 16 16 16 _sectQQ 16 6 16 100

6 6 16 6009

32 6 6 16

40 6 16 6

40 16 16 6 ~ 1155 16 16 6

18 18 18

116 116 116 10 11240

16 16 14 14

20 16 16 14 1200

17 114 114 11086 22600

16 110 110 Is 3951

16118 118 112 ~1 110 Ito 18 ~ 16 16 16 ~

147 16 16 16

112 112 18 -~ 116 116 114 1_QQQ

7288 _72JJ_

41765 151542

200265

~ Turnout Solid Set

Costs_ ~ts Costs

$3400

$3400

j1400 11FI~i1t poundftf $149744 $3400

$3400

$3400

_g400

_g4oo

_$400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400 10 llll $3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

~ ~000

$299489 ~00


Year 2012-2013


Rights Frankel 15 6 6 6 1100 $6809 $3400

Moen 8 6 6 6 600 $3714 $3400


Stephenson 7 16 16 16 10 4670 $82784 $3400

Booras 8 6 4 4 $3400 FampL 11 6 6 4 1200 $4200 $3400


Parker 4 10 10 8 3000 $18570 $3400

Molesworth 9 6 6 6 8700 $53853 $3400 6 6 6 $3400


Gillespie 56 $3400

Sub Total $3400

Total 440 64692 $539363 $74800


Total Acres 200265

Appendix C


Janl1aty 1ti2ot2

MareThala~Rer



OeatMatb


Appe-ndmiddotix D

Official Resolution











Don Boyer President



ATTEST

Appendix E















p~












TOTAL PROJECT COSTS



1000 each 18 4000 each 4

3000 each 18

4000 each 5

2000 each 5


Sub-total


$868000 $ 500000 $ 58000 $ 250000 $ $345000 $ 95000 -$ $945000 $ 500 000 $ 155000 $680000 $ 500000 $ 30 000

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $100()0

$2966000

$5800841 $15000

$100000

$5915841

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $10_000

$ 1 500000 $ 216 000 $ 500000

$15000

$ 1500000 $ 310860 $ 500000

$

$

$

$

PELTON FUND TSID

60 000 250000 290000

150000

750000 $ -

$10000000

750000 $ 2854981

Grant Totals

BOR Other

OWEB PELTON

TSID

$ I $

$ $

$

1500000 310860 I 500000 7Sooool

2854981

FEDERAL FEDERAL


NON-FEDERAL


$ $

1810860 4104981 $

rr-b

Appendix F


E(Q~-tive Sunnnary

















IV The SWSE Program


























oHoe SIN$~ p~ograrn




19

middotmiddot

U$er exp~rience


stagesmiddot

Awaxenbull$s





statetamLSWCD s











pr~gr~nits







































20 pho-

















plex_ il~Ji3stion

21

1

l


N N

~ ~

)_)









tg~lCf$5

































23

~middot













menUbe sfr~tegies












middot middot







flal








25l

l

I









































~ j

i I

26

27










9










10












11















12



annually

















13











14


20000acre ft30000acre ft = 6667



2500 acre ft30000 acre ft = 833








15















NA



Red Band Trout











16

















17













18





Yes












19














56)






20









21













22

















23
















24


















25






56)












Phase 5






Phase 4






26









27







No


No


Yes


Yes

28









29












30

middot






No


No



31












None to date




32












Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860



33


Budget Proposal










34











35







36










Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860




37


38

Appendix A

Project Maps

Appendix B


amp Contract




NRCS 68-0436-1075

Introduction








agreement

I Authority




II Background















agreement








HI Purpose



producers lands

1V Responsibilities


















contracts

p4J


B TSID agrees to








Acts




























r41




project effort






objectives









sequestration




the A WEP program




















Act (28 USC 2671-80)













V Duration






p4b




VI Provisions








Accepted by


Date s-301 ~ 7






Halousek 40 6

Hoff 16 6

middotGrisham 476 6

Pr~te 14 6

Falls 55 6 6

Slagle 145 6 6



Vetterlein 17060 14





-shy

Pipe Size

8 14 6 6 6 6 4 6

12 6 6 6 6 6

6 6

6 6 6 6 6 6


2000 $14360 $3400 4300 $70864 $3400

$3400 $3400

7400 $81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$166920 $47600

-middot -shy --shy


$22840 $17760 $22840 $74264

$31464 $31464

$3400 $3400

$81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$28550 $28550 $3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$31464 $51390 $214520 $82854





Miller 174 6 6

Cornick 71 6 6

Stengal 107 6 6

Evered 153 6 6

LazyZ Partners 1056





6 6

ARNOLD 6 6


6 6 Total 89269


12 7700 $85008 12 138750 $3400 12 217500 $3400 12 88750 $3400 12 133750 $3400 12 191250 $3400

12 400000 $44160

16 4670 $51557 $3400 10 1942 $21440 $3400 8 500 $5520 $3400

$3400 16 II 3307 $54499 $3400 4 1200 $3400 1086 22600 $3400



8 3951 $3400 ~ 12 10491 $3400 8 3000 $3400 6 8700 $3400 6 $3400 8 5280 $3400 14 1000 $3400

6 500 $3400 6 700 $3400 6 800 $3400

88041 $262184 $74800

Pivot 2012

Costs

2013


Year 2012 - 2013

Owner Total

Water

Rights


Keeton B3


TUMALO FARMS 3303

FRONK 2405

Sub Total

Total 9758


Total Acres 200265


Size Size Size Pipe

6 6 6 1100

6 6 6 600

6 6 6 100

6 6 12 7000

6 6 6

6 6 6

6 6 6 500

6 6 6

8 8 8 4860

16 16 16 10 4670

6 4 4

6 6 4 1200 14 14 1086 22600 10 10i 8 42630

85260


Costs Costs Costs

$3400

$3400

$3400 $77280 $3400

$3400

$3400 $1750 $3400

$3400

$164317 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400 $3400


$486693 $88400


owner

middotFrench

M Cyrus

CEMENT DITCH

Mansker

Swaner

Boyer

lA Keeton

IZDITCH

IMcKeever

Poole

Barclay

King

ITewalt

BROWN DITCH

I Redfield

lsub Total

I Total

Total A middot Can

Total Acres


Rights

135 16 16 16 1100

1343 16 16 16 _sectQQ 16 6 16 100

6 6 16 6009

32 6 6 16

40 6 16 6

40 16 16 6 ~ 1155 16 16 6

18 18 18

116 116 116 10 11240

16 16 14 14

20 16 16 14 1200

17 114 114 11086 22600

16 110 110 Is 3951

16118 118 112 ~1 110 Ito 18 ~ 16 16 16 ~

147 16 16 16

112 112 18 -~ 116 116 114 1_QQQ

7288 _72JJ_

41765 151542

200265

~ Turnout Solid Set

Costs_ ~ts Costs

$3400

$3400

j1400 11FI~i1t poundftf $149744 $3400

$3400

$3400

_g400

_g4oo

_$400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400 10 llll $3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

~ ~000

$299489 ~00


Year 2012-2013


Rights Frankel 15 6 6 6 1100 $6809 $3400

Moen 8 6 6 6 600 $3714 $3400


Stephenson 7 16 16 16 10 4670 $82784 $3400

Booras 8 6 4 4 $3400 FampL 11 6 6 4 1200 $4200 $3400


Parker 4 10 10 8 3000 $18570 $3400

Molesworth 9 6 6 6 8700 $53853 $3400 6 6 6 $3400


Gillespie 56 $3400

Sub Total $3400

Total 440 64692 $539363 $74800


Total Acres 200265

Appendix C


Janl1aty 1ti2ot2

MareThala~Rer



OeatMatb


Appe-ndmiddotix D

Official Resolution











Don Boyer President



ATTEST

Appendix E















p~












TOTAL PROJECT COSTS



1000 each 18 4000 each 4

3000 each 18

4000 each 5

2000 each 5


Sub-total


$868000 $ 500000 $ 58000 $ 250000 $ $345000 $ 95000 -$ $945000 $ 500 000 $ 155000 $680000 $ 500000 $ 30 000

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $100()0

$2966000

$5800841 $15000

$100000

$5915841

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $10_000

$ 1 500000 $ 216 000 $ 500000

$15000

$ 1500000 $ 310860 $ 500000

$

$

$

$

PELTON FUND TSID

60 000 250000 290000

150000

750000 $ -

$10000000

750000 $ 2854981

Grant Totals

BOR Other

OWEB PELTON

TSID

$ I $

$ $

$

1500000 310860 I 500000 7Sooool

2854981

FEDERAL FEDERAL


NON-FEDERAL


$ $

1810860 4104981 $

rr-b

Appendix F


E(Q~-tive Sunnnary

















IV The SWSE Program


























oHoe SIN$~ p~ograrn




19

middotmiddot

U$er exp~rience


stagesmiddot

Awaxenbull$s





statetamLSWCD s











pr~gr~nits







































20 pho-

















plex_ il~Ji3stion

21

1

l


N N

~ ~

)_)









tg~lCf$5

































23

~middot













menUbe sfr~tegies












middot middot







flal








25l

l

I









































~ j

i I

26

27










10












11















12



annually

















13











14


20000acre ft30000acre ft = 6667



2500 acre ft30000 acre ft = 833








15















NA



Red Band Trout











16

















17













18





Yes












19














56)






20









21













22

















23
















24


















25






56)












Phase 5






Phase 4






26









27







No


No


Yes


Yes

28









29












30

middot






No


No



31












None to date




32












Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860



33


Budget Proposal










34











35







36










Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860




37


38

Appendix A

Project Maps

Appendix B


amp Contract




NRCS 68-0436-1075

Introduction








agreement

I Authority




II Background















agreement








HI Purpose



producers lands

1V Responsibilities


















contracts

p4J


B TSID agrees to








Acts




























r41




project effort






objectives









sequestration




the A WEP program




















Act (28 USC 2671-80)













V Duration






p4b




VI Provisions








Accepted by


Date s-301 ~ 7






Halousek 40 6

Hoff 16 6

middotGrisham 476 6

Pr~te 14 6

Falls 55 6 6

Slagle 145 6 6



Vetterlein 17060 14





-shy

Pipe Size

8 14 6 6 6 6 4 6

12 6 6 6 6 6

6 6

6 6 6 6 6 6


2000 $14360 $3400 4300 $70864 $3400

$3400 $3400

7400 $81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$166920 $47600

-middot -shy --shy


$22840 $17760 $22840 $74264

$31464 $31464

$3400 $3400

$81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$28550 $28550 $3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$31464 $51390 $214520 $82854





Miller 174 6 6

Cornick 71 6 6

Stengal 107 6 6

Evered 153 6 6

LazyZ Partners 1056





6 6

ARNOLD 6 6


6 6 Total 89269


12 7700 $85008 12 138750 $3400 12 217500 $3400 12 88750 $3400 12 133750 $3400 12 191250 $3400

12 400000 $44160

16 4670 $51557 $3400 10 1942 $21440 $3400 8 500 $5520 $3400

$3400 16 II 3307 $54499 $3400 4 1200 $3400 1086 22600 $3400



8 3951 $3400 ~ 12 10491 $3400 8 3000 $3400 6 8700 $3400 6 $3400 8 5280 $3400 14 1000 $3400

6 500 $3400 6 700 $3400 6 800 $3400

88041 $262184 $74800

Pivot 2012

Costs

2013


Year 2012 - 2013

Owner Total

Water

Rights


Keeton B3


TUMALO FARMS 3303

FRONK 2405

Sub Total

Total 9758


Total Acres 200265


Size Size Size Pipe

6 6 6 1100

6 6 6 600

6 6 6 100

6 6 12 7000

6 6 6

6 6 6

6 6 6 500

6 6 6

8 8 8 4860

16 16 16 10 4670

6 4 4

6 6 4 1200 14 14 1086 22600 10 10i 8 42630

85260


Costs Costs Costs

$3400

$3400

$3400 $77280 $3400

$3400

$3400 $1750 $3400

$3400

$164317 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400 $3400


$486693 $88400


owner

middotFrench

M Cyrus

CEMENT DITCH

Mansker

Swaner

Boyer

lA Keeton

IZDITCH

IMcKeever

Poole

Barclay

King

ITewalt

BROWN DITCH

I Redfield

lsub Total

I Total

Total A middot Can

Total Acres


Rights

135 16 16 16 1100

1343 16 16 16 _sectQQ 16 6 16 100

6 6 16 6009

32 6 6 16

40 6 16 6

40 16 16 6 ~ 1155 16 16 6

18 18 18

116 116 116 10 11240

16 16 14 14

20 16 16 14 1200

17 114 114 11086 22600

16 110 110 Is 3951

16118 118 112 ~1 110 Ito 18 ~ 16 16 16 ~

147 16 16 16

112 112 18 -~ 116 116 114 1_QQQ

7288 _72JJ_

41765 151542

200265

~ Turnout Solid Set

Costs_ ~ts Costs

$3400

$3400

j1400 11FI~i1t poundftf $149744 $3400

$3400

$3400

_g400

_g4oo

_$400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400 10 llll $3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

~ ~000

$299489 ~00


Year 2012-2013


Rights Frankel 15 6 6 6 1100 $6809 $3400

Moen 8 6 6 6 600 $3714 $3400


Stephenson 7 16 16 16 10 4670 $82784 $3400

Booras 8 6 4 4 $3400 FampL 11 6 6 4 1200 $4200 $3400


Parker 4 10 10 8 3000 $18570 $3400

Molesworth 9 6 6 6 8700 $53853 $3400 6 6 6 $3400


Gillespie 56 $3400

Sub Total $3400

Total 440 64692 $539363 $74800


Total Acres 200265

Appendix C


Janl1aty 1ti2ot2

MareThala~Rer



OeatMatb


Appe-ndmiddotix D

Official Resolution











Don Boyer President



ATTEST

Appendix E















p~












TOTAL PROJECT COSTS



1000 each 18 4000 each 4

3000 each 18

4000 each 5

2000 each 5


Sub-total


$868000 $ 500000 $ 58000 $ 250000 $ $345000 $ 95000 -$ $945000 $ 500 000 $ 155000 $680000 $ 500000 $ 30 000

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $100()0

$2966000

$5800841 $15000

$100000

$5915841

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $10_000

$ 1 500000 $ 216 000 $ 500000

$15000

$ 1500000 $ 310860 $ 500000

$

$

$

$

PELTON FUND TSID

60 000 250000 290000

150000

750000 $ -

$10000000

750000 $ 2854981

Grant Totals

BOR Other

OWEB PELTON

TSID

$ I $

$ $

$

1500000 310860 I 500000 7Sooool

2854981

FEDERAL FEDERAL


NON-FEDERAL


$ $

1810860 4104981 $

rr-b

Appendix F


E(Q~-tive Sunnnary

















IV The SWSE Program


























oHoe SIN$~ p~ograrn




19

middotmiddot

U$er exp~rience


stagesmiddot

Awaxenbull$s





statetamLSWCD s











pr~gr~nits







































20 pho-

















plex_ il~Ji3stion

21

1

l


N N

~ ~

)_)









tg~lCf$5

































23

~middot













menUbe sfr~tegies












middot middot







flal








25l

l

I









































~ j

i I

26

27












11















12



annually

















13











14


20000acre ft30000acre ft = 6667



2500 acre ft30000 acre ft = 833








15















NA



Red Band Trout











16

















17













18





Yes












19














56)






20









21













22

















23
















24


















25






56)












Phase 5






Phase 4






26









27







No


No


Yes


Yes

28









29












30

middot






No


No



31












None to date




32












Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860



33


Budget Proposal










34











35







36










Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860




37


38

Appendix A

Project Maps

Appendix B


amp Contract




NRCS 68-0436-1075

Introduction








agreement

I Authority




II Background















agreement








HI Purpose



producers lands

1V Responsibilities


















contracts

p4J


B TSID agrees to








Acts




























r41




project effort






objectives









sequestration




the A WEP program




















Act (28 USC 2671-80)













V Duration






p4b




VI Provisions








Accepted by


Date s-301 ~ 7






Halousek 40 6

Hoff 16 6

middotGrisham 476 6

Pr~te 14 6

Falls 55 6 6

Slagle 145 6 6



Vetterlein 17060 14





-shy

Pipe Size

8 14 6 6 6 6 4 6

12 6 6 6 6 6

6 6

6 6 6 6 6 6


2000 $14360 $3400 4300 $70864 $3400

$3400 $3400

7400 $81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$166920 $47600

-middot -shy --shy


$22840 $17760 $22840 $74264

$31464 $31464

$3400 $3400

$81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$28550 $28550 $3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$31464 $51390 $214520 $82854





Miller 174 6 6

Cornick 71 6 6

Stengal 107 6 6

Evered 153 6 6

LazyZ Partners 1056





6 6

ARNOLD 6 6


6 6 Total 89269


12 7700 $85008 12 138750 $3400 12 217500 $3400 12 88750 $3400 12 133750 $3400 12 191250 $3400

12 400000 $44160

16 4670 $51557 $3400 10 1942 $21440 $3400 8 500 $5520 $3400

$3400 16 II 3307 $54499 $3400 4 1200 $3400 1086 22600 $3400



8 3951 $3400 ~ 12 10491 $3400 8 3000 $3400 6 8700 $3400 6 $3400 8 5280 $3400 14 1000 $3400

6 500 $3400 6 700 $3400 6 800 $3400

88041 $262184 $74800

Pivot 2012

Costs

2013


Year 2012 - 2013

Owner Total

Water

Rights


Keeton B3


TUMALO FARMS 3303

FRONK 2405

Sub Total

Total 9758


Total Acres 200265


Size Size Size Pipe

6 6 6 1100

6 6 6 600

6 6 6 100

6 6 12 7000

6 6 6

6 6 6

6 6 6 500

6 6 6

8 8 8 4860

16 16 16 10 4670

6 4 4

6 6 4 1200 14 14 1086 22600 10 10i 8 42630

85260


Costs Costs Costs

$3400

$3400

$3400 $77280 $3400

$3400

$3400 $1750 $3400

$3400

$164317 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400 $3400


$486693 $88400


owner

middotFrench

M Cyrus

CEMENT DITCH

Mansker

Swaner

Boyer

lA Keeton

IZDITCH

IMcKeever

Poole

Barclay

King

ITewalt

BROWN DITCH

I Redfield

lsub Total

I Total

Total A middot Can

Total Acres


Rights

135 16 16 16 1100

1343 16 16 16 _sectQQ 16 6 16 100

6 6 16 6009

32 6 6 16

40 6 16 6

40 16 16 6 ~ 1155 16 16 6

18 18 18

116 116 116 10 11240

16 16 14 14

20 16 16 14 1200

17 114 114 11086 22600

16 110 110 Is 3951

16118 118 112 ~1 110 Ito 18 ~ 16 16 16 ~

147 16 16 16

112 112 18 -~ 116 116 114 1_QQQ

7288 _72JJ_

41765 151542

200265

~ Turnout Solid Set

Costs_ ~ts Costs

$3400

$3400

j1400 11FI~i1t poundftf $149744 $3400

$3400

$3400

_g400

_g4oo

_$400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400 10 llll $3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

~ ~000

$299489 ~00


Year 2012-2013


Rights Frankel 15 6 6 6 1100 $6809 $3400

Moen 8 6 6 6 600 $3714 $3400


Stephenson 7 16 16 16 10 4670 $82784 $3400

Booras 8 6 4 4 $3400 FampL 11 6 6 4 1200 $4200 $3400


Parker 4 10 10 8 3000 $18570 $3400

Molesworth 9 6 6 6 8700 $53853 $3400 6 6 6 $3400


Gillespie 56 $3400

Sub Total $3400

Total 440 64692 $539363 $74800


Total Acres 200265

Appendix C


Janl1aty 1ti2ot2

MareThala~Rer



OeatMatb


Appe-ndmiddotix D

Official Resolution











Don Boyer President



ATTEST

Appendix E















p~












TOTAL PROJECT COSTS



1000 each 18 4000 each 4

3000 each 18

4000 each 5

2000 each 5


Sub-total


$868000 $ 500000 $ 58000 $ 250000 $ $345000 $ 95000 -$ $945000 $ 500 000 $ 155000 $680000 $ 500000 $ 30 000

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $100()0

$2966000

$5800841 $15000

$100000

$5915841

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $10_000

$ 1 500000 $ 216 000 $ 500000

$15000

$ 1500000 $ 310860 $ 500000

$

$

$

$

PELTON FUND TSID

60 000 250000 290000

150000

750000 $ -

$10000000

750000 $ 2854981

Grant Totals

BOR Other

OWEB PELTON

TSID

$ I $

$ $

$

1500000 310860 I 500000 7Sooool

2854981

FEDERAL FEDERAL


NON-FEDERAL


$ $

1810860 4104981 $

rr-b

Appendix F


E(Q~-tive Sunnnary

















IV The SWSE Program


























oHoe SIN$~ p~ograrn




19

middotmiddot

U$er exp~rience


stagesmiddot

Awaxenbull$s





statetamLSWCD s











pr~gr~nits







































20 pho-

















plex_ il~Ji3stion

21

1

l


N N

~ ~

)_)









tg~lCf$5

































23

~middot













menUbe sfr~tegies












middot middot







flal








25l

l

I









































~ j

i I

26

27















12



annually

















13











14


20000acre ft30000acre ft = 6667



2500 acre ft30000 acre ft = 833








15















NA



Red Band Trout











16

















17













18





Yes












19














56)






20









21













22

















23
















24


















25






56)












Phase 5






Phase 4






26









27







No


No


Yes


Yes

28









29












30

middot






No


No



31












None to date




32












Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860



33


Budget Proposal










34











35







36










Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860




37


38

Appendix A

Project Maps

Appendix B


amp Contract




NRCS 68-0436-1075

Introduction








agreement

I Authority




II Background















agreement








HI Purpose



producers lands

1V Responsibilities


















contracts

p4J


B TSID agrees to








Acts




























r41




project effort






objectives









sequestration




the A WEP program




















Act (28 USC 2671-80)













V Duration






p4b




VI Provisions








Accepted by


Date s-301 ~ 7






Halousek 40 6

Hoff 16 6

middotGrisham 476 6

Pr~te 14 6

Falls 55 6 6

Slagle 145 6 6



Vetterlein 17060 14





-shy

Pipe Size

8 14 6 6 6 6 4 6

12 6 6 6 6 6

6 6

6 6 6 6 6 6


2000 $14360 $3400 4300 $70864 $3400

$3400 $3400

7400 $81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$166920 $47600

-middot -shy --shy


$22840 $17760 $22840 $74264

$31464 $31464

$3400 $3400

$81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$28550 $28550 $3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$31464 $51390 $214520 $82854





Miller 174 6 6

Cornick 71 6 6

Stengal 107 6 6

Evered 153 6 6

LazyZ Partners 1056





6 6

ARNOLD 6 6


6 6 Total 89269


12 7700 $85008 12 138750 $3400 12 217500 $3400 12 88750 $3400 12 133750 $3400 12 191250 $3400

12 400000 $44160

16 4670 $51557 $3400 10 1942 $21440 $3400 8 500 $5520 $3400

$3400 16 II 3307 $54499 $3400 4 1200 $3400 1086 22600 $3400



8 3951 $3400 ~ 12 10491 $3400 8 3000 $3400 6 8700 $3400 6 $3400 8 5280 $3400 14 1000 $3400

6 500 $3400 6 700 $3400 6 800 $3400

88041 $262184 $74800

Pivot 2012

Costs

2013


Year 2012 - 2013

Owner Total

Water

Rights


Keeton B3


TUMALO FARMS 3303

FRONK 2405

Sub Total

Total 9758


Total Acres 200265


Size Size Size Pipe

6 6 6 1100

6 6 6 600

6 6 6 100

6 6 12 7000

6 6 6

6 6 6

6 6 6 500

6 6 6

8 8 8 4860

16 16 16 10 4670

6 4 4

6 6 4 1200 14 14 1086 22600 10 10i 8 42630

85260


Costs Costs Costs

$3400

$3400

$3400 $77280 $3400

$3400

$3400 $1750 $3400

$3400

$164317 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400 $3400


$486693 $88400


owner

middotFrench

M Cyrus

CEMENT DITCH

Mansker

Swaner

Boyer

lA Keeton

IZDITCH

IMcKeever

Poole

Barclay

King

ITewalt

BROWN DITCH

I Redfield

lsub Total

I Total

Total A middot Can

Total Acres


Rights

135 16 16 16 1100

1343 16 16 16 _sectQQ 16 6 16 100

6 6 16 6009

32 6 6 16

40 6 16 6

40 16 16 6 ~ 1155 16 16 6

18 18 18

116 116 116 10 11240

16 16 14 14

20 16 16 14 1200

17 114 114 11086 22600

16 110 110 Is 3951

16118 118 112 ~1 110 Ito 18 ~ 16 16 16 ~

147 16 16 16

112 112 18 -~ 116 116 114 1_QQQ

7288 _72JJ_

41765 151542

200265

~ Turnout Solid Set

Costs_ ~ts Costs

$3400

$3400

j1400 11FI~i1t poundftf $149744 $3400

$3400

$3400

_g400

_g4oo

_$400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400 10 llll $3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

~ ~000

$299489 ~00


Year 2012-2013


Rights Frankel 15 6 6 6 1100 $6809 $3400

Moen 8 6 6 6 600 $3714 $3400


Stephenson 7 16 16 16 10 4670 $82784 $3400

Booras 8 6 4 4 $3400 FampL 11 6 6 4 1200 $4200 $3400


Parker 4 10 10 8 3000 $18570 $3400

Molesworth 9 6 6 6 8700 $53853 $3400 6 6 6 $3400


Gillespie 56 $3400

Sub Total $3400

Total 440 64692 $539363 $74800


Total Acres 200265

Appendix C


Janl1aty 1ti2ot2

MareThala~Rer



OeatMatb


Appe-ndmiddotix D

Official Resolution











Don Boyer President



ATTEST

Appendix E















p~












TOTAL PROJECT COSTS



1000 each 18 4000 each 4

3000 each 18

4000 each 5

2000 each 5


Sub-total


$868000 $ 500000 $ 58000 $ 250000 $ $345000 $ 95000 -$ $945000 $ 500 000 $ 155000 $680000 $ 500000 $ 30 000

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $100()0

$2966000

$5800841 $15000

$100000

$5915841

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $10_000

$ 1 500000 $ 216 000 $ 500000

$15000

$ 1500000 $ 310860 $ 500000

$

$

$

$

PELTON FUND TSID

60 000 250000 290000

150000

750000 $ -

$10000000

750000 $ 2854981

Grant Totals

BOR Other

OWEB PELTON

TSID

$ I $

$ $

$

1500000 310860 I 500000 7Sooool

2854981

FEDERAL FEDERAL


NON-FEDERAL


$ $

1810860 4104981 $

rr-b

Appendix F


E(Q~-tive Sunnnary

















IV The SWSE Program


























oHoe SIN$~ p~ograrn




19

middotmiddot

U$er exp~rience


stagesmiddot

Awaxenbull$s





statetamLSWCD s











pr~gr~nits







































20 pho-

















plex_ il~Ji3stion

21

1

l


N N

~ ~

)_)









tg~lCf$5

































23

~middot













menUbe sfr~tegies












middot middot







flal








25l

l

I









































~ j

i I

26

27



annually

















13











14


20000acre ft30000acre ft = 6667



2500 acre ft30000 acre ft = 833








15















NA



Red Band Trout











16

















17













18





Yes












19














56)






20









21













22

















23
















24


















25






56)












Phase 5






Phase 4






26









27







No


No


Yes


Yes

28









29












30

middot






No


No



31












None to date




32












Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860



33


Budget Proposal










34











35







36










Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860




37


38

Appendix A

Project Maps

Appendix B


amp Contract




NRCS 68-0436-1075

Introduction








agreement

I Authority




II Background















agreement








HI Purpose



producers lands

1V Responsibilities


















contracts

p4J


B TSID agrees to








Acts




























r41




project effort






objectives









sequestration




the A WEP program




















Act (28 USC 2671-80)













V Duration






p4b




VI Provisions








Accepted by


Date s-301 ~ 7






Halousek 40 6

Hoff 16 6

middotGrisham 476 6

Pr~te 14 6

Falls 55 6 6

Slagle 145 6 6



Vetterlein 17060 14





-shy

Pipe Size

8 14 6 6 6 6 4 6

12 6 6 6 6 6

6 6

6 6 6 6 6 6


2000 $14360 $3400 4300 $70864 $3400

$3400 $3400

7400 $81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$166920 $47600

-middot -shy --shy


$22840 $17760 $22840 $74264

$31464 $31464

$3400 $3400

$81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$28550 $28550 $3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$31464 $51390 $214520 $82854





Miller 174 6 6

Cornick 71 6 6

Stengal 107 6 6

Evered 153 6 6

LazyZ Partners 1056





6 6

ARNOLD 6 6


6 6 Total 89269


12 7700 $85008 12 138750 $3400 12 217500 $3400 12 88750 $3400 12 133750 $3400 12 191250 $3400

12 400000 $44160

16 4670 $51557 $3400 10 1942 $21440 $3400 8 500 $5520 $3400

$3400 16 II 3307 $54499 $3400 4 1200 $3400 1086 22600 $3400



8 3951 $3400 ~ 12 10491 $3400 8 3000 $3400 6 8700 $3400 6 $3400 8 5280 $3400 14 1000 $3400

6 500 $3400 6 700 $3400 6 800 $3400

88041 $262184 $74800

Pivot 2012

Costs

2013


Year 2012 - 2013

Owner Total

Water

Rights


Keeton B3


TUMALO FARMS 3303

FRONK 2405

Sub Total

Total 9758


Total Acres 200265


Size Size Size Pipe

6 6 6 1100

6 6 6 600

6 6 6 100

6 6 12 7000

6 6 6

6 6 6

6 6 6 500

6 6 6

8 8 8 4860

16 16 16 10 4670

6 4 4

6 6 4 1200 14 14 1086 22600 10 10i 8 42630

85260


Costs Costs Costs

$3400

$3400

$3400 $77280 $3400

$3400

$3400 $1750 $3400

$3400

$164317 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400 $3400


$486693 $88400


owner

middotFrench

M Cyrus

CEMENT DITCH

Mansker

Swaner

Boyer

lA Keeton

IZDITCH

IMcKeever

Poole

Barclay

King

ITewalt

BROWN DITCH

I Redfield

lsub Total

I Total

Total A middot Can

Total Acres


Rights

135 16 16 16 1100

1343 16 16 16 _sectQQ 16 6 16 100

6 6 16 6009

32 6 6 16

40 6 16 6

40 16 16 6 ~ 1155 16 16 6

18 18 18

116 116 116 10 11240

16 16 14 14

20 16 16 14 1200

17 114 114 11086 22600

16 110 110 Is 3951

16118 118 112 ~1 110 Ito 18 ~ 16 16 16 ~

147 16 16 16

112 112 18 -~ 116 116 114 1_QQQ

7288 _72JJ_

41765 151542

200265

~ Turnout Solid Set

Costs_ ~ts Costs

$3400

$3400

j1400 11FI~i1t poundftf $149744 $3400

$3400

$3400

_g400

_g4oo

_$400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400 10 llll $3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

~ ~000

$299489 ~00


Year 2012-2013


Rights Frankel 15 6 6 6 1100 $6809 $3400

Moen 8 6 6 6 600 $3714 $3400


Stephenson 7 16 16 16 10 4670 $82784 $3400

Booras 8 6 4 4 $3400 FampL 11 6 6 4 1200 $4200 $3400


Parker 4 10 10 8 3000 $18570 $3400

Molesworth 9 6 6 6 8700 $53853 $3400 6 6 6 $3400


Gillespie 56 $3400

Sub Total $3400

Total 440 64692 $539363 $74800


Total Acres 200265

Appendix C


Janl1aty 1ti2ot2

MareThala~Rer



OeatMatb


Appe-ndmiddotix D

Official Resolution











Don Boyer President



ATTEST

Appendix E















p~












TOTAL PROJECT COSTS



1000 each 18 4000 each 4

3000 each 18

4000 each 5

2000 each 5


Sub-total


$868000 $ 500000 $ 58000 $ 250000 $ $345000 $ 95000 -$ $945000 $ 500 000 $ 155000 $680000 $ 500000 $ 30 000

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $100()0

$2966000

$5800841 $15000

$100000

$5915841

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $10_000

$ 1 500000 $ 216 000 $ 500000

$15000

$ 1500000 $ 310860 $ 500000

$

$

$

$

PELTON FUND TSID

60 000 250000 290000

150000

750000 $ -

$10000000

750000 $ 2854981

Grant Totals

BOR Other

OWEB PELTON

TSID

$ I $

$ $

$

1500000 310860 I 500000 7Sooool

2854981

FEDERAL FEDERAL


NON-FEDERAL


$ $

1810860 4104981 $

rr-b

Appendix F


E(Q~-tive Sunnnary

















IV The SWSE Program


























oHoe SIN$~ p~ograrn




19

middotmiddot

U$er exp~rience


stagesmiddot

Awaxenbull$s





statetamLSWCD s











pr~gr~nits







































20 pho-

















plex_ il~Ji3stion

21

1

l


N N

~ ~

)_)









tg~lCf$5

































23

~middot













menUbe sfr~tegies












middot middot







flal








25l

l

I









































~ j

i I

26

27











14


20000acre ft30000acre ft = 6667



2500 acre ft30000 acre ft = 833








15















NA



Red Band Trout











16

















17













18





Yes












19














56)






20









21













22

















23
















24


















25






56)












Phase 5






Phase 4






26









27







No


No


Yes


Yes

28









29












30

middot






No


No



31












None to date




32












Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860



33


Budget Proposal










34











35







36










Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860




37


38

Appendix A

Project Maps

Appendix B


amp Contract




NRCS 68-0436-1075

Introduction








agreement

I Authority




II Background















agreement








HI Purpose



producers lands

1V Responsibilities


















contracts

p4J


B TSID agrees to








Acts




























r41




project effort






objectives









sequestration




the A WEP program




















Act (28 USC 2671-80)













V Duration






p4b




VI Provisions








Accepted by


Date s-301 ~ 7






Halousek 40 6

Hoff 16 6

middotGrisham 476 6

Pr~te 14 6

Falls 55 6 6

Slagle 145 6 6



Vetterlein 17060 14





-shy

Pipe Size

8 14 6 6 6 6 4 6

12 6 6 6 6 6

6 6

6 6 6 6 6 6


2000 $14360 $3400 4300 $70864 $3400

$3400 $3400

7400 $81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$166920 $47600

-middot -shy --shy


$22840 $17760 $22840 $74264

$31464 $31464

$3400 $3400

$81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$28550 $28550 $3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$31464 $51390 $214520 $82854





Miller 174 6 6

Cornick 71 6 6

Stengal 107 6 6

Evered 153 6 6

LazyZ Partners 1056





6 6

ARNOLD 6 6


6 6 Total 89269


12 7700 $85008 12 138750 $3400 12 217500 $3400 12 88750 $3400 12 133750 $3400 12 191250 $3400

12 400000 $44160

16 4670 $51557 $3400 10 1942 $21440 $3400 8 500 $5520 $3400

$3400 16 II 3307 $54499 $3400 4 1200 $3400 1086 22600 $3400



8 3951 $3400 ~ 12 10491 $3400 8 3000 $3400 6 8700 $3400 6 $3400 8 5280 $3400 14 1000 $3400

6 500 $3400 6 700 $3400 6 800 $3400

88041 $262184 $74800

Pivot 2012

Costs

2013


Year 2012 - 2013

Owner Total

Water

Rights


Keeton B3


TUMALO FARMS 3303

FRONK 2405

Sub Total

Total 9758


Total Acres 200265


Size Size Size Pipe

6 6 6 1100

6 6 6 600

6 6 6 100

6 6 12 7000

6 6 6

6 6 6

6 6 6 500

6 6 6

8 8 8 4860

16 16 16 10 4670

6 4 4

6 6 4 1200 14 14 1086 22600 10 10i 8 42630

85260


Costs Costs Costs

$3400

$3400

$3400 $77280 $3400

$3400

$3400 $1750 $3400

$3400

$164317 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400 $3400


$486693 $88400


owner

middotFrench

M Cyrus

CEMENT DITCH

Mansker

Swaner

Boyer

lA Keeton

IZDITCH

IMcKeever

Poole

Barclay

King

ITewalt

BROWN DITCH

I Redfield

lsub Total

I Total

Total A middot Can

Total Acres


Rights

135 16 16 16 1100

1343 16 16 16 _sectQQ 16 6 16 100

6 6 16 6009

32 6 6 16

40 6 16 6

40 16 16 6 ~ 1155 16 16 6

18 18 18

116 116 116 10 11240

16 16 14 14

20 16 16 14 1200

17 114 114 11086 22600

16 110 110 Is 3951

16118 118 112 ~1 110 Ito 18 ~ 16 16 16 ~

147 16 16 16

112 112 18 -~ 116 116 114 1_QQQ

7288 _72JJ_

41765 151542

200265

~ Turnout Solid Set

Costs_ ~ts Costs

$3400

$3400

j1400 11FI~i1t poundftf $149744 $3400

$3400

$3400

_g400

_g4oo

_$400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400 10 llll $3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

~ ~000

$299489 ~00


Year 2012-2013


Rights Frankel 15 6 6 6 1100 $6809 $3400

Moen 8 6 6 6 600 $3714 $3400


Stephenson 7 16 16 16 10 4670 $82784 $3400

Booras 8 6 4 4 $3400 FampL 11 6 6 4 1200 $4200 $3400


Parker 4 10 10 8 3000 $18570 $3400

Molesworth 9 6 6 6 8700 $53853 $3400 6 6 6 $3400


Gillespie 56 $3400

Sub Total $3400

Total 440 64692 $539363 $74800


Total Acres 200265

Appendix C


Janl1aty 1ti2ot2

MareThala~Rer



OeatMatb


Appe-ndmiddotix D

Official Resolution











Don Boyer President



ATTEST

Appendix E















p~












TOTAL PROJECT COSTS



1000 each 18 4000 each 4

3000 each 18

4000 each 5

2000 each 5


Sub-total


$868000 $ 500000 $ 58000 $ 250000 $ $345000 $ 95000 -$ $945000 $ 500 000 $ 155000 $680000 $ 500000 $ 30 000

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $100()0

$2966000

$5800841 $15000

$100000

$5915841

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $10_000

$ 1 500000 $ 216 000 $ 500000

$15000

$ 1500000 $ 310860 $ 500000

$

$

$

$

PELTON FUND TSID

60 000 250000 290000

150000

750000 $ -

$10000000

750000 $ 2854981

Grant Totals

BOR Other

OWEB PELTON

TSID

$ I $

$ $

$

1500000 310860 I 500000 7Sooool

2854981

FEDERAL FEDERAL


NON-FEDERAL


$ $

1810860 4104981 $

rr-b

Appendix F


E(Q~-tive Sunnnary

















IV The SWSE Program


























oHoe SIN$~ p~ograrn




19

middotmiddot

U$er exp~rience


stagesmiddot

Awaxenbull$s





statetamLSWCD s











pr~gr~nits







































20 pho-

















plex_ il~Ji3stion

21

1

l


N N

~ ~

)_)









tg~lCf$5

































23

~middot













menUbe sfr~tegies












middot middot







flal








25l

l

I









































~ j

i I

26

27


20000acre ft30000acre ft = 6667



2500 acre ft30000 acre ft = 833








15















NA



Red Band Trout











16

















17













18





Yes












19














56)






20









21













22

















23
















24


















25






56)












Phase 5






Phase 4






26









27







No


No


Yes


Yes

28









29












30

middot






No


No



31












None to date




32












Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860



33


Budget Proposal










34











35







36










Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860




37


38

Appendix A

Project Maps

Appendix B


amp Contract




NRCS 68-0436-1075

Introduction








agreement

I Authority




II Background















agreement








HI Purpose



producers lands

1V Responsibilities


















contracts

p4J


B TSID agrees to








Acts




























r41




project effort






objectives









sequestration




the A WEP program




















Act (28 USC 2671-80)













V Duration






p4b




VI Provisions








Accepted by


Date s-301 ~ 7






Halousek 40 6

Hoff 16 6

middotGrisham 476 6

Pr~te 14 6

Falls 55 6 6

Slagle 145 6 6



Vetterlein 17060 14





-shy

Pipe Size

8 14 6 6 6 6 4 6

12 6 6 6 6 6

6 6

6 6 6 6 6 6


2000 $14360 $3400 4300 $70864 $3400

$3400 $3400

7400 $81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$166920 $47600

-middot -shy --shy


$22840 $17760 $22840 $74264

$31464 $31464

$3400 $3400

$81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$28550 $28550 $3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$31464 $51390 $214520 $82854





Miller 174 6 6

Cornick 71 6 6

Stengal 107 6 6

Evered 153 6 6

LazyZ Partners 1056





6 6

ARNOLD 6 6


6 6 Total 89269


12 7700 $85008 12 138750 $3400 12 217500 $3400 12 88750 $3400 12 133750 $3400 12 191250 $3400

12 400000 $44160

16 4670 $51557 $3400 10 1942 $21440 $3400 8 500 $5520 $3400

$3400 16 II 3307 $54499 $3400 4 1200 $3400 1086 22600 $3400



8 3951 $3400 ~ 12 10491 $3400 8 3000 $3400 6 8700 $3400 6 $3400 8 5280 $3400 14 1000 $3400

6 500 $3400 6 700 $3400 6 800 $3400

88041 $262184 $74800

Pivot 2012

Costs

2013


Year 2012 - 2013

Owner Total

Water

Rights


Keeton B3


TUMALO FARMS 3303

FRONK 2405

Sub Total

Total 9758


Total Acres 200265


Size Size Size Pipe

6 6 6 1100

6 6 6 600

6 6 6 100

6 6 12 7000

6 6 6

6 6 6

6 6 6 500

6 6 6

8 8 8 4860

16 16 16 10 4670

6 4 4

6 6 4 1200 14 14 1086 22600 10 10i 8 42630

85260


Costs Costs Costs

$3400

$3400

$3400 $77280 $3400

$3400

$3400 $1750 $3400

$3400

$164317 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400 $3400


$486693 $88400


owner

middotFrench

M Cyrus

CEMENT DITCH

Mansker

Swaner

Boyer

lA Keeton

IZDITCH

IMcKeever

Poole

Barclay

King

ITewalt

BROWN DITCH

I Redfield

lsub Total

I Total

Total A middot Can

Total Acres


Rights

135 16 16 16 1100

1343 16 16 16 _sectQQ 16 6 16 100

6 6 16 6009

32 6 6 16

40 6 16 6

40 16 16 6 ~ 1155 16 16 6

18 18 18

116 116 116 10 11240

16 16 14 14

20 16 16 14 1200

17 114 114 11086 22600

16 110 110 Is 3951

16118 118 112 ~1 110 Ito 18 ~ 16 16 16 ~

147 16 16 16

112 112 18 -~ 116 116 114 1_QQQ

7288 _72JJ_

41765 151542

200265

~ Turnout Solid Set

Costs_ ~ts Costs

$3400

$3400

j1400 11FI~i1t poundftf $149744 $3400

$3400

$3400

_g400

_g4oo

_$400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400 10 llll $3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

~ ~000

$299489 ~00


Year 2012-2013


Rights Frankel 15 6 6 6 1100 $6809 $3400

Moen 8 6 6 6 600 $3714 $3400


Stephenson 7 16 16 16 10 4670 $82784 $3400

Booras 8 6 4 4 $3400 FampL 11 6 6 4 1200 $4200 $3400


Parker 4 10 10 8 3000 $18570 $3400

Molesworth 9 6 6 6 8700 $53853 $3400 6 6 6 $3400


Gillespie 56 $3400

Sub Total $3400

Total 440 64692 $539363 $74800


Total Acres 200265

Appendix C


Janl1aty 1ti2ot2

MareThala~Rer



OeatMatb


Appe-ndmiddotix D

Official Resolution











Don Boyer President



ATTEST

Appendix E















p~












TOTAL PROJECT COSTS



1000 each 18 4000 each 4

3000 each 18

4000 each 5

2000 each 5


Sub-total


$868000 $ 500000 $ 58000 $ 250000 $ $345000 $ 95000 -$ $945000 $ 500 000 $ 155000 $680000 $ 500000 $ 30 000

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $100()0

$2966000

$5800841 $15000

$100000

$5915841

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $10_000

$ 1 500000 $ 216 000 $ 500000

$15000

$ 1500000 $ 310860 $ 500000

$

$

$

$

PELTON FUND TSID

60 000 250000 290000

150000

750000 $ -

$10000000

750000 $ 2854981

Grant Totals

BOR Other

OWEB PELTON

TSID

$ I $

$ $

$

1500000 310860 I 500000 7Sooool

2854981

FEDERAL FEDERAL


NON-FEDERAL


$ $

1810860 4104981 $

rr-b

Appendix F


E(Q~-tive Sunnnary

















IV The SWSE Program


























oHoe SIN$~ p~ograrn




19

middotmiddot

U$er exp~rience


stagesmiddot

Awaxenbull$s





statetamLSWCD s











pr~gr~nits







































20 pho-

















plex_ il~Ji3stion

21

1

l


N N

~ ~

)_)









tg~lCf$5

































23

~middot













menUbe sfr~tegies












middot middot







flal








25l

l

I









































~ j

i I

26

27















NA



Red Band Trout











16

















17













18





Yes












19














56)






20









21













22

















23
















24


















25






56)












Phase 5






Phase 4






26









27







No


No


Yes


Yes

28









29












30

middot






No


No



31












None to date




32












Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860



33


Budget Proposal










34











35







36










Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860




37


38

Appendix A

Project Maps

Appendix B


amp Contract




NRCS 68-0436-1075

Introduction








agreement

I Authority




II Background















agreement








HI Purpose



producers lands

1V Responsibilities


















contracts

p4J


B TSID agrees to








Acts




























r41




project effort






objectives









sequestration




the A WEP program




















Act (28 USC 2671-80)













V Duration






p4b




VI Provisions








Accepted by


Date s-301 ~ 7






Halousek 40 6

Hoff 16 6

middotGrisham 476 6

Pr~te 14 6

Falls 55 6 6

Slagle 145 6 6



Vetterlein 17060 14





-shy

Pipe Size

8 14 6 6 6 6 4 6

12 6 6 6 6 6

6 6

6 6 6 6 6 6


2000 $14360 $3400 4300 $70864 $3400

$3400 $3400

7400 $81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$166920 $47600

-middot -shy --shy


$22840 $17760 $22840 $74264

$31464 $31464

$3400 $3400

$81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$28550 $28550 $3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$31464 $51390 $214520 $82854





Miller 174 6 6

Cornick 71 6 6

Stengal 107 6 6

Evered 153 6 6

LazyZ Partners 1056





6 6

ARNOLD 6 6


6 6 Total 89269


12 7700 $85008 12 138750 $3400 12 217500 $3400 12 88750 $3400 12 133750 $3400 12 191250 $3400

12 400000 $44160

16 4670 $51557 $3400 10 1942 $21440 $3400 8 500 $5520 $3400

$3400 16 II 3307 $54499 $3400 4 1200 $3400 1086 22600 $3400



8 3951 $3400 ~ 12 10491 $3400 8 3000 $3400 6 8700 $3400 6 $3400 8 5280 $3400 14 1000 $3400

6 500 $3400 6 700 $3400 6 800 $3400

88041 $262184 $74800

Pivot 2012

Costs

2013


Year 2012 - 2013

Owner Total

Water

Rights


Keeton B3


TUMALO FARMS 3303

FRONK 2405

Sub Total

Total 9758


Total Acres 200265


Size Size Size Pipe

6 6 6 1100

6 6 6 600

6 6 6 100

6 6 12 7000

6 6 6

6 6 6

6 6 6 500

6 6 6

8 8 8 4860

16 16 16 10 4670

6 4 4

6 6 4 1200 14 14 1086 22600 10 10i 8 42630

85260


Costs Costs Costs

$3400

$3400

$3400 $77280 $3400

$3400

$3400 $1750 $3400

$3400

$164317 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400 $3400


$486693 $88400


owner

middotFrench

M Cyrus

CEMENT DITCH

Mansker

Swaner

Boyer

lA Keeton

IZDITCH

IMcKeever

Poole

Barclay

King

ITewalt

BROWN DITCH

I Redfield

lsub Total

I Total

Total A middot Can

Total Acres


Rights

135 16 16 16 1100

1343 16 16 16 _sectQQ 16 6 16 100

6 6 16 6009

32 6 6 16

40 6 16 6

40 16 16 6 ~ 1155 16 16 6

18 18 18

116 116 116 10 11240

16 16 14 14

20 16 16 14 1200

17 114 114 11086 22600

16 110 110 Is 3951

16118 118 112 ~1 110 Ito 18 ~ 16 16 16 ~

147 16 16 16

112 112 18 -~ 116 116 114 1_QQQ

7288 _72JJ_

41765 151542

200265

~ Turnout Solid Set

Costs_ ~ts Costs

$3400

$3400

j1400 11FI~i1t poundftf $149744 $3400

$3400

$3400

_g400

_g4oo

_$400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400 10 llll $3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

~ ~000

$299489 ~00


Year 2012-2013


Rights Frankel 15 6 6 6 1100 $6809 $3400

Moen 8 6 6 6 600 $3714 $3400


Stephenson 7 16 16 16 10 4670 $82784 $3400

Booras 8 6 4 4 $3400 FampL 11 6 6 4 1200 $4200 $3400


Parker 4 10 10 8 3000 $18570 $3400

Molesworth 9 6 6 6 8700 $53853 $3400 6 6 6 $3400


Gillespie 56 $3400

Sub Total $3400

Total 440 64692 $539363 $74800


Total Acres 200265

Appendix C


Janl1aty 1ti2ot2

MareThala~Rer



OeatMatb


Appe-ndmiddotix D

Official Resolution











Don Boyer President



ATTEST

Appendix E















p~












TOTAL PROJECT COSTS



1000 each 18 4000 each 4

3000 each 18

4000 each 5

2000 each 5


Sub-total


$868000 $ 500000 $ 58000 $ 250000 $ $345000 $ 95000 -$ $945000 $ 500 000 $ 155000 $680000 $ 500000 $ 30 000

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $100()0

$2966000

$5800841 $15000

$100000

$5915841

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $10_000

$ 1 500000 $ 216 000 $ 500000

$15000

$ 1500000 $ 310860 $ 500000

$

$

$

$

PELTON FUND TSID

60 000 250000 290000

150000

750000 $ -

$10000000

750000 $ 2854981

Grant Totals

BOR Other

OWEB PELTON

TSID

$ I $

$ $

$

1500000 310860 I 500000 7Sooool

2854981

FEDERAL FEDERAL


NON-FEDERAL


$ $

1810860 4104981 $

rr-b

Appendix F


E(Q~-tive Sunnnary

















IV The SWSE Program


























oHoe SIN$~ p~ograrn




19

middotmiddot

U$er exp~rience


stagesmiddot

Awaxenbull$s





statetamLSWCD s











pr~gr~nits







































20 pho-

















plex_ il~Ji3stion

21

1

l


N N

~ ~

)_)









tg~lCf$5

































23

~middot













menUbe sfr~tegies












middot middot







flal








25l

l

I









































~ j

i I

26

27

















17













18





Yes












19














56)






20









21













22

















23
















24


















25






56)












Phase 5






Phase 4






26









27







No


No


Yes


Yes

28









29












30

middot






No


No



31












None to date




32












Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860



33


Budget Proposal










34











35







36










Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860




37


38

Appendix A

Project Maps

Appendix B


amp Contract




NRCS 68-0436-1075

Introduction








agreement

I Authority




II Background















agreement








HI Purpose



producers lands

1V Responsibilities


















contracts

p4J


B TSID agrees to








Acts




























r41




project effort






objectives









sequestration




the A WEP program




















Act (28 USC 2671-80)













V Duration






p4b




VI Provisions








Accepted by


Date s-301 ~ 7






Halousek 40 6

Hoff 16 6

middotGrisham 476 6

Pr~te 14 6

Falls 55 6 6

Slagle 145 6 6



Vetterlein 17060 14





-shy

Pipe Size

8 14 6 6 6 6 4 6

12 6 6 6 6 6

6 6

6 6 6 6 6 6


2000 $14360 $3400 4300 $70864 $3400

$3400 $3400

7400 $81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$166920 $47600

-middot -shy --shy


$22840 $17760 $22840 $74264

$31464 $31464

$3400 $3400

$81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$28550 $28550 $3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$31464 $51390 $214520 $82854





Miller 174 6 6

Cornick 71 6 6

Stengal 107 6 6

Evered 153 6 6

LazyZ Partners 1056





6 6

ARNOLD 6 6


6 6 Total 89269


12 7700 $85008 12 138750 $3400 12 217500 $3400 12 88750 $3400 12 133750 $3400 12 191250 $3400

12 400000 $44160

16 4670 $51557 $3400 10 1942 $21440 $3400 8 500 $5520 $3400

$3400 16 II 3307 $54499 $3400 4 1200 $3400 1086 22600 $3400



8 3951 $3400 ~ 12 10491 $3400 8 3000 $3400 6 8700 $3400 6 $3400 8 5280 $3400 14 1000 $3400

6 500 $3400 6 700 $3400 6 800 $3400

88041 $262184 $74800

Pivot 2012

Costs

2013


Year 2012 - 2013

Owner Total

Water

Rights


Keeton B3


TUMALO FARMS 3303

FRONK 2405

Sub Total

Total 9758


Total Acres 200265


Size Size Size Pipe

6 6 6 1100

6 6 6 600

6 6 6 100

6 6 12 7000

6 6 6

6 6 6

6 6 6 500

6 6 6

8 8 8 4860

16 16 16 10 4670

6 4 4

6 6 4 1200 14 14 1086 22600 10 10i 8 42630

85260


Costs Costs Costs

$3400

$3400

$3400 $77280 $3400

$3400

$3400 $1750 $3400

$3400

$164317 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400 $3400


$486693 $88400


owner

middotFrench

M Cyrus

CEMENT DITCH

Mansker

Swaner

Boyer

lA Keeton

IZDITCH

IMcKeever

Poole

Barclay

King

ITewalt

BROWN DITCH

I Redfield

lsub Total

I Total

Total A middot Can

Total Acres


Rights

135 16 16 16 1100

1343 16 16 16 _sectQQ 16 6 16 100

6 6 16 6009

32 6 6 16

40 6 16 6

40 16 16 6 ~ 1155 16 16 6

18 18 18

116 116 116 10 11240

16 16 14 14

20 16 16 14 1200

17 114 114 11086 22600

16 110 110 Is 3951

16118 118 112 ~1 110 Ito 18 ~ 16 16 16 ~

147 16 16 16

112 112 18 -~ 116 116 114 1_QQQ

7288 _72JJ_

41765 151542

200265

~ Turnout Solid Set

Costs_ ~ts Costs

$3400

$3400

j1400 11FI~i1t poundftf $149744 $3400

$3400

$3400

_g400

_g4oo

_$400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400 10 llll $3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

~ ~000

$299489 ~00


Year 2012-2013


Rights Frankel 15 6 6 6 1100 $6809 $3400

Moen 8 6 6 6 600 $3714 $3400


Stephenson 7 16 16 16 10 4670 $82784 $3400

Booras 8 6 4 4 $3400 FampL 11 6 6 4 1200 $4200 $3400


Parker 4 10 10 8 3000 $18570 $3400

Molesworth 9 6 6 6 8700 $53853 $3400 6 6 6 $3400


Gillespie 56 $3400

Sub Total $3400

Total 440 64692 $539363 $74800


Total Acres 200265

Appendix C


Janl1aty 1ti2ot2

MareThala~Rer



OeatMatb


Appe-ndmiddotix D

Official Resolution











Don Boyer President



ATTEST

Appendix E















p~












TOTAL PROJECT COSTS



1000 each 18 4000 each 4

3000 each 18

4000 each 5

2000 each 5


Sub-total


$868000 $ 500000 $ 58000 $ 250000 $ $345000 $ 95000 -$ $945000 $ 500 000 $ 155000 $680000 $ 500000 $ 30 000

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $100()0

$2966000

$5800841 $15000

$100000

$5915841

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $10_000

$ 1 500000 $ 216 000 $ 500000

$15000

$ 1500000 $ 310860 $ 500000

$

$

$

$

PELTON FUND TSID

60 000 250000 290000

150000

750000 $ -

$10000000

750000 $ 2854981

Grant Totals

BOR Other

OWEB PELTON

TSID

$ I $

$ $

$

1500000 310860 I 500000 7Sooool

2854981

FEDERAL FEDERAL


NON-FEDERAL


$ $

1810860 4104981 $

rr-b

Appendix F


E(Q~-tive Sunnnary

















IV The SWSE Program


























oHoe SIN$~ p~ograrn




19

middotmiddot

U$er exp~rience


stagesmiddot

Awaxenbull$s





statetamLSWCD s











pr~gr~nits







































20 pho-

















plex_ il~Ji3stion

21

1

l


N N

~ ~

)_)









tg~lCf$5

































23

~middot













menUbe sfr~tegies












middot middot







flal








25l

l

I









































~ j

i I

26

27













18





Yes












19














56)






20









21













22

















23
















24


















25






56)












Phase 5






Phase 4






26









27







No


No


Yes


Yes

28









29












30

middot






No


No



31












None to date




32












Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860



33


Budget Proposal










34











35







36










Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860




37


38

Appendix A

Project Maps

Appendix B


amp Contract




NRCS 68-0436-1075

Introduction








agreement

I Authority




II Background















agreement








HI Purpose



producers lands

1V Responsibilities


















contracts

p4J


B TSID agrees to








Acts




























r41




project effort






objectives









sequestration




the A WEP program




















Act (28 USC 2671-80)













V Duration






p4b




VI Provisions








Accepted by


Date s-301 ~ 7






Halousek 40 6

Hoff 16 6

middotGrisham 476 6

Pr~te 14 6

Falls 55 6 6

Slagle 145 6 6



Vetterlein 17060 14





-shy

Pipe Size

8 14 6 6 6 6 4 6

12 6 6 6 6 6

6 6

6 6 6 6 6 6


2000 $14360 $3400 4300 $70864 $3400

$3400 $3400

7400 $81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$166920 $47600

-middot -shy --shy


$22840 $17760 $22840 $74264

$31464 $31464

$3400 $3400

$81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$28550 $28550 $3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$31464 $51390 $214520 $82854





Miller 174 6 6

Cornick 71 6 6

Stengal 107 6 6

Evered 153 6 6

LazyZ Partners 1056





6 6

ARNOLD 6 6


6 6 Total 89269


12 7700 $85008 12 138750 $3400 12 217500 $3400 12 88750 $3400 12 133750 $3400 12 191250 $3400

12 400000 $44160

16 4670 $51557 $3400 10 1942 $21440 $3400 8 500 $5520 $3400

$3400 16 II 3307 $54499 $3400 4 1200 $3400 1086 22600 $3400



8 3951 $3400 ~ 12 10491 $3400 8 3000 $3400 6 8700 $3400 6 $3400 8 5280 $3400 14 1000 $3400

6 500 $3400 6 700 $3400 6 800 $3400

88041 $262184 $74800

Pivot 2012

Costs

2013


Year 2012 - 2013

Owner Total

Water

Rights


Keeton B3


TUMALO FARMS 3303

FRONK 2405

Sub Total

Total 9758


Total Acres 200265


Size Size Size Pipe

6 6 6 1100

6 6 6 600

6 6 6 100

6 6 12 7000

6 6 6

6 6 6

6 6 6 500

6 6 6

8 8 8 4860

16 16 16 10 4670

6 4 4

6 6 4 1200 14 14 1086 22600 10 10i 8 42630

85260


Costs Costs Costs

$3400

$3400

$3400 $77280 $3400

$3400

$3400 $1750 $3400

$3400

$164317 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400 $3400


$486693 $88400


owner

middotFrench

M Cyrus

CEMENT DITCH

Mansker

Swaner

Boyer

lA Keeton

IZDITCH

IMcKeever

Poole

Barclay

King

ITewalt

BROWN DITCH

I Redfield

lsub Total

I Total

Total A middot Can

Total Acres


Rights

135 16 16 16 1100

1343 16 16 16 _sectQQ 16 6 16 100

6 6 16 6009

32 6 6 16

40 6 16 6

40 16 16 6 ~ 1155 16 16 6

18 18 18

116 116 116 10 11240

16 16 14 14

20 16 16 14 1200

17 114 114 11086 22600

16 110 110 Is 3951

16118 118 112 ~1 110 Ito 18 ~ 16 16 16 ~

147 16 16 16

112 112 18 -~ 116 116 114 1_QQQ

7288 _72JJ_

41765 151542

200265

~ Turnout Solid Set

Costs_ ~ts Costs

$3400

$3400

j1400 11FI~i1t poundftf $149744 $3400

$3400

$3400

_g400

_g4oo

_$400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400 10 llll $3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

~ ~000

$299489 ~00


Year 2012-2013


Rights Frankel 15 6 6 6 1100 $6809 $3400

Moen 8 6 6 6 600 $3714 $3400


Stephenson 7 16 16 16 10 4670 $82784 $3400

Booras 8 6 4 4 $3400 FampL 11 6 6 4 1200 $4200 $3400


Parker 4 10 10 8 3000 $18570 $3400

Molesworth 9 6 6 6 8700 $53853 $3400 6 6 6 $3400


Gillespie 56 $3400

Sub Total $3400

Total 440 64692 $539363 $74800


Total Acres 200265

Appendix C


Janl1aty 1ti2ot2

MareThala~Rer



OeatMatb


Appe-ndmiddotix D

Official Resolution











Don Boyer President



ATTEST

Appendix E















p~












TOTAL PROJECT COSTS



1000 each 18 4000 each 4

3000 each 18

4000 each 5

2000 each 5


Sub-total


$868000 $ 500000 $ 58000 $ 250000 $ $345000 $ 95000 -$ $945000 $ 500 000 $ 155000 $680000 $ 500000 $ 30 000

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $100()0

$2966000

$5800841 $15000

$100000

$5915841

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $10_000

$ 1 500000 $ 216 000 $ 500000

$15000

$ 1500000 $ 310860 $ 500000

$

$

$

$

PELTON FUND TSID

60 000 250000 290000

150000

750000 $ -

$10000000

750000 $ 2854981

Grant Totals

BOR Other

OWEB PELTON

TSID

$ I $

$ $

$

1500000 310860 I 500000 7Sooool

2854981

FEDERAL FEDERAL


NON-FEDERAL


$ $

1810860 4104981 $

rr-b

Appendix F


E(Q~-tive Sunnnary

















IV The SWSE Program


























oHoe SIN$~ p~ograrn




19

middotmiddot

U$er exp~rience


stagesmiddot

Awaxenbull$s





statetamLSWCD s











pr~gr~nits







































20 pho-

















plex_ il~Ji3stion

21

1

l


N N

~ ~

)_)









tg~lCf$5

































23

~middot













menUbe sfr~tegies












middot middot







flal








25l

l

I









































~ j

i I

26

27





Yes












19














56)






20









21













22

















23
















24


















25






56)












Phase 5






Phase 4






26









27







No


No


Yes


Yes

28









29












30

middot






No


No



31












None to date




32












Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860



33


Budget Proposal










34











35







36










Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860




37


38

Appendix A

Project Maps

Appendix B


amp Contract




NRCS 68-0436-1075

Introduction








agreement

I Authority




II Background















agreement








HI Purpose



producers lands

1V Responsibilities


















contracts

p4J


B TSID agrees to








Acts




























r41




project effort






objectives









sequestration




the A WEP program




















Act (28 USC 2671-80)













V Duration






p4b




VI Provisions








Accepted by


Date s-301 ~ 7






Halousek 40 6

Hoff 16 6

middotGrisham 476 6

Pr~te 14 6

Falls 55 6 6

Slagle 145 6 6



Vetterlein 17060 14





-shy

Pipe Size

8 14 6 6 6 6 4 6

12 6 6 6 6 6

6 6

6 6 6 6 6 6


2000 $14360 $3400 4300 $70864 $3400

$3400 $3400

7400 $81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$166920 $47600

-middot -shy --shy


$22840 $17760 $22840 $74264

$31464 $31464

$3400 $3400

$81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$28550 $28550 $3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$31464 $51390 $214520 $82854





Miller 174 6 6

Cornick 71 6 6

Stengal 107 6 6

Evered 153 6 6

LazyZ Partners 1056





6 6

ARNOLD 6 6


6 6 Total 89269


12 7700 $85008 12 138750 $3400 12 217500 $3400 12 88750 $3400 12 133750 $3400 12 191250 $3400

12 400000 $44160

16 4670 $51557 $3400 10 1942 $21440 $3400 8 500 $5520 $3400

$3400 16 II 3307 $54499 $3400 4 1200 $3400 1086 22600 $3400



8 3951 $3400 ~ 12 10491 $3400 8 3000 $3400 6 8700 $3400 6 $3400 8 5280 $3400 14 1000 $3400

6 500 $3400 6 700 $3400 6 800 $3400

88041 $262184 $74800

Pivot 2012

Costs

2013


Year 2012 - 2013

Owner Total

Water

Rights


Keeton B3


TUMALO FARMS 3303

FRONK 2405

Sub Total

Total 9758


Total Acres 200265


Size Size Size Pipe

6 6 6 1100

6 6 6 600

6 6 6 100

6 6 12 7000

6 6 6

6 6 6

6 6 6 500

6 6 6

8 8 8 4860

16 16 16 10 4670

6 4 4

6 6 4 1200 14 14 1086 22600 10 10i 8 42630

85260


Costs Costs Costs

$3400

$3400

$3400 $77280 $3400

$3400

$3400 $1750 $3400

$3400

$164317 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400 $3400


$486693 $88400


owner

middotFrench

M Cyrus

CEMENT DITCH

Mansker

Swaner

Boyer

lA Keeton

IZDITCH

IMcKeever

Poole

Barclay

King

ITewalt

BROWN DITCH

I Redfield

lsub Total

I Total

Total A middot Can

Total Acres


Rights

135 16 16 16 1100

1343 16 16 16 _sectQQ 16 6 16 100

6 6 16 6009

32 6 6 16

40 6 16 6

40 16 16 6 ~ 1155 16 16 6

18 18 18

116 116 116 10 11240

16 16 14 14

20 16 16 14 1200

17 114 114 11086 22600

16 110 110 Is 3951

16118 118 112 ~1 110 Ito 18 ~ 16 16 16 ~

147 16 16 16

112 112 18 -~ 116 116 114 1_QQQ

7288 _72JJ_

41765 151542

200265

~ Turnout Solid Set

Costs_ ~ts Costs

$3400

$3400

j1400 11FI~i1t poundftf $149744 $3400

$3400

$3400

_g400

_g4oo

_$400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400 10 llll $3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

~ ~000

$299489 ~00


Year 2012-2013


Rights Frankel 15 6 6 6 1100 $6809 $3400

Moen 8 6 6 6 600 $3714 $3400


Stephenson 7 16 16 16 10 4670 $82784 $3400

Booras 8 6 4 4 $3400 FampL 11 6 6 4 1200 $4200 $3400


Parker 4 10 10 8 3000 $18570 $3400

Molesworth 9 6 6 6 8700 $53853 $3400 6 6 6 $3400


Gillespie 56 $3400

Sub Total $3400

Total 440 64692 $539363 $74800


Total Acres 200265

Appendix C


Janl1aty 1ti2ot2

MareThala~Rer



OeatMatb


Appe-ndmiddotix D

Official Resolution











Don Boyer President



ATTEST

Appendix E















p~












TOTAL PROJECT COSTS



1000 each 18 4000 each 4

3000 each 18

4000 each 5

2000 each 5


Sub-total


$868000 $ 500000 $ 58000 $ 250000 $ $345000 $ 95000 -$ $945000 $ 500 000 $ 155000 $680000 $ 500000 $ 30 000

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $100()0

$2966000

$5800841 $15000

$100000

$5915841

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $10_000

$ 1 500000 $ 216 000 $ 500000

$15000

$ 1500000 $ 310860 $ 500000

$

$

$

$

PELTON FUND TSID

60 000 250000 290000

150000

750000 $ -

$10000000

750000 $ 2854981

Grant Totals

BOR Other

OWEB PELTON

TSID

$ I $

$ $

$

1500000 310860 I 500000 7Sooool

2854981

FEDERAL FEDERAL


NON-FEDERAL


$ $

1810860 4104981 $

rr-b

Appendix F


E(Q~-tive Sunnnary

















IV The SWSE Program


























oHoe SIN$~ p~ograrn




19

middotmiddot

U$er exp~rience


stagesmiddot

Awaxenbull$s





statetamLSWCD s











pr~gr~nits







































20 pho-

















plex_ il~Ji3stion

21

1

l


N N

~ ~

)_)









tg~lCf$5

































23

~middot













menUbe sfr~tegies












middot middot







flal








25l

l

I









































~ j

i I

26

27














56)






20









21













22

















23
















24


















25






56)












Phase 5






Phase 4






26









27







No


No


Yes


Yes

28









29












30

middot






No


No



31












None to date




32












Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860



33


Budget Proposal










34











35







36










Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860




37


38

Appendix A

Project Maps

Appendix B


amp Contract




NRCS 68-0436-1075

Introduction








agreement

I Authority




II Background















agreement








HI Purpose



producers lands

1V Responsibilities


















contracts

p4J


B TSID agrees to








Acts




























r41




project effort






objectives









sequestration




the A WEP program




















Act (28 USC 2671-80)













V Duration






p4b




VI Provisions








Accepted by


Date s-301 ~ 7






Halousek 40 6

Hoff 16 6

middotGrisham 476 6

Pr~te 14 6

Falls 55 6 6

Slagle 145 6 6



Vetterlein 17060 14





-shy

Pipe Size

8 14 6 6 6 6 4 6

12 6 6 6 6 6

6 6

6 6 6 6 6 6


2000 $14360 $3400 4300 $70864 $3400

$3400 $3400

7400 $81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$166920 $47600

-middot -shy --shy


$22840 $17760 $22840 $74264

$31464 $31464

$3400 $3400

$81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$28550 $28550 $3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$31464 $51390 $214520 $82854





Miller 174 6 6

Cornick 71 6 6

Stengal 107 6 6

Evered 153 6 6

LazyZ Partners 1056





6 6

ARNOLD 6 6


6 6 Total 89269


12 7700 $85008 12 138750 $3400 12 217500 $3400 12 88750 $3400 12 133750 $3400 12 191250 $3400

12 400000 $44160

16 4670 $51557 $3400 10 1942 $21440 $3400 8 500 $5520 $3400

$3400 16 II 3307 $54499 $3400 4 1200 $3400 1086 22600 $3400



8 3951 $3400 ~ 12 10491 $3400 8 3000 $3400 6 8700 $3400 6 $3400 8 5280 $3400 14 1000 $3400

6 500 $3400 6 700 $3400 6 800 $3400

88041 $262184 $74800

Pivot 2012

Costs

2013


Year 2012 - 2013

Owner Total

Water

Rights


Keeton B3


TUMALO FARMS 3303

FRONK 2405

Sub Total

Total 9758


Total Acres 200265


Size Size Size Pipe

6 6 6 1100

6 6 6 600

6 6 6 100

6 6 12 7000

6 6 6

6 6 6

6 6 6 500

6 6 6

8 8 8 4860

16 16 16 10 4670

6 4 4

6 6 4 1200 14 14 1086 22600 10 10i 8 42630

85260


Costs Costs Costs

$3400

$3400

$3400 $77280 $3400

$3400

$3400 $1750 $3400

$3400

$164317 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400 $3400


$486693 $88400


owner

middotFrench

M Cyrus

CEMENT DITCH

Mansker

Swaner

Boyer

lA Keeton

IZDITCH

IMcKeever

Poole

Barclay

King

ITewalt

BROWN DITCH

I Redfield

lsub Total

I Total

Total A middot Can

Total Acres


Rights

135 16 16 16 1100

1343 16 16 16 _sectQQ 16 6 16 100

6 6 16 6009

32 6 6 16

40 6 16 6

40 16 16 6 ~ 1155 16 16 6

18 18 18

116 116 116 10 11240

16 16 14 14

20 16 16 14 1200

17 114 114 11086 22600

16 110 110 Is 3951

16118 118 112 ~1 110 Ito 18 ~ 16 16 16 ~

147 16 16 16

112 112 18 -~ 116 116 114 1_QQQ

7288 _72JJ_

41765 151542

200265

~ Turnout Solid Set

Costs_ ~ts Costs

$3400

$3400

j1400 11FI~i1t poundftf $149744 $3400

$3400

$3400

_g400

_g4oo

_$400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400 10 llll $3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

~ ~000

$299489 ~00


Year 2012-2013


Rights Frankel 15 6 6 6 1100 $6809 $3400

Moen 8 6 6 6 600 $3714 $3400


Stephenson 7 16 16 16 10 4670 $82784 $3400

Booras 8 6 4 4 $3400 FampL 11 6 6 4 1200 $4200 $3400


Parker 4 10 10 8 3000 $18570 $3400

Molesworth 9 6 6 6 8700 $53853 $3400 6 6 6 $3400


Gillespie 56 $3400

Sub Total $3400

Total 440 64692 $539363 $74800


Total Acres 200265

Appendix C


Janl1aty 1ti2ot2

MareThala~Rer



OeatMatb


Appe-ndmiddotix D

Official Resolution











Don Boyer President



ATTEST

Appendix E















p~












TOTAL PROJECT COSTS



1000 each 18 4000 each 4

3000 each 18

4000 each 5

2000 each 5


Sub-total


$868000 $ 500000 $ 58000 $ 250000 $ $345000 $ 95000 -$ $945000 $ 500 000 $ 155000 $680000 $ 500000 $ 30 000

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $100()0

$2966000

$5800841 $15000

$100000

$5915841

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $10_000

$ 1 500000 $ 216 000 $ 500000

$15000

$ 1500000 $ 310860 $ 500000

$

$

$

$

PELTON FUND TSID

60 000 250000 290000

150000

750000 $ -

$10000000

750000 $ 2854981

Grant Totals

BOR Other

OWEB PELTON

TSID

$ I $

$ $

$

1500000 310860 I 500000 7Sooool

2854981

FEDERAL FEDERAL


NON-FEDERAL


$ $

1810860 4104981 $

rr-b

Appendix F


E(Q~-tive Sunnnary

















IV The SWSE Program


























oHoe SIN$~ p~ograrn




19

middotmiddot

U$er exp~rience


stagesmiddot

Awaxenbull$s





statetamLSWCD s











pr~gr~nits







































20 pho-

















plex_ il~Ji3stion

21

1

l


N N

~ ~

)_)









tg~lCf$5

































23

~middot













menUbe sfr~tegies












middot middot







flal








25l

l

I









































~ j

i I

26

27









21













22

















23
















24


















25






56)












Phase 5






Phase 4






26









27







No


No


Yes


Yes

28









29












30

middot






No


No



31












None to date




32












Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860



33


Budget Proposal










34











35







36










Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860




37


38

Appendix A

Project Maps

Appendix B


amp Contract




NRCS 68-0436-1075

Introduction








agreement

I Authority




II Background















agreement








HI Purpose



producers lands

1V Responsibilities


















contracts

p4J


B TSID agrees to








Acts




























r41




project effort






objectives









sequestration




the A WEP program




















Act (28 USC 2671-80)













V Duration






p4b




VI Provisions








Accepted by


Date s-301 ~ 7






Halousek 40 6

Hoff 16 6

middotGrisham 476 6

Pr~te 14 6

Falls 55 6 6

Slagle 145 6 6



Vetterlein 17060 14





-shy

Pipe Size

8 14 6 6 6 6 4 6

12 6 6 6 6 6

6 6

6 6 6 6 6 6


2000 $14360 $3400 4300 $70864 $3400

$3400 $3400

7400 $81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$166920 $47600

-middot -shy --shy


$22840 $17760 $22840 $74264

$31464 $31464

$3400 $3400

$81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$28550 $28550 $3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$31464 $51390 $214520 $82854





Miller 174 6 6

Cornick 71 6 6

Stengal 107 6 6

Evered 153 6 6

LazyZ Partners 1056





6 6

ARNOLD 6 6


6 6 Total 89269


12 7700 $85008 12 138750 $3400 12 217500 $3400 12 88750 $3400 12 133750 $3400 12 191250 $3400

12 400000 $44160

16 4670 $51557 $3400 10 1942 $21440 $3400 8 500 $5520 $3400

$3400 16 II 3307 $54499 $3400 4 1200 $3400 1086 22600 $3400



8 3951 $3400 ~ 12 10491 $3400 8 3000 $3400 6 8700 $3400 6 $3400 8 5280 $3400 14 1000 $3400

6 500 $3400 6 700 $3400 6 800 $3400

88041 $262184 $74800

Pivot 2012

Costs

2013


Year 2012 - 2013

Owner Total

Water

Rights


Keeton B3


TUMALO FARMS 3303

FRONK 2405

Sub Total

Total 9758


Total Acres 200265


Size Size Size Pipe

6 6 6 1100

6 6 6 600

6 6 6 100

6 6 12 7000

6 6 6

6 6 6

6 6 6 500

6 6 6

8 8 8 4860

16 16 16 10 4670

6 4 4

6 6 4 1200 14 14 1086 22600 10 10i 8 42630

85260


Costs Costs Costs

$3400

$3400

$3400 $77280 $3400

$3400

$3400 $1750 $3400

$3400

$164317 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400 $3400


$486693 $88400


owner

middotFrench

M Cyrus

CEMENT DITCH

Mansker

Swaner

Boyer

lA Keeton

IZDITCH

IMcKeever

Poole

Barclay

King

ITewalt

BROWN DITCH

I Redfield

lsub Total

I Total

Total A middot Can

Total Acres


Rights

135 16 16 16 1100

1343 16 16 16 _sectQQ 16 6 16 100

6 6 16 6009

32 6 6 16

40 6 16 6

40 16 16 6 ~ 1155 16 16 6

18 18 18

116 116 116 10 11240

16 16 14 14

20 16 16 14 1200

17 114 114 11086 22600

16 110 110 Is 3951

16118 118 112 ~1 110 Ito 18 ~ 16 16 16 ~

147 16 16 16

112 112 18 -~ 116 116 114 1_QQQ

7288 _72JJ_

41765 151542

200265

~ Turnout Solid Set

Costs_ ~ts Costs

$3400

$3400

j1400 11FI~i1t poundftf $149744 $3400

$3400

$3400

_g400

_g4oo

_$400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400 10 llll $3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

~ ~000

$299489 ~00


Year 2012-2013


Rights Frankel 15 6 6 6 1100 $6809 $3400

Moen 8 6 6 6 600 $3714 $3400


Stephenson 7 16 16 16 10 4670 $82784 $3400

Booras 8 6 4 4 $3400 FampL 11 6 6 4 1200 $4200 $3400


Parker 4 10 10 8 3000 $18570 $3400

Molesworth 9 6 6 6 8700 $53853 $3400 6 6 6 $3400


Gillespie 56 $3400

Sub Total $3400

Total 440 64692 $539363 $74800


Total Acres 200265

Appendix C


Janl1aty 1ti2ot2

MareThala~Rer



OeatMatb


Appe-ndmiddotix D

Official Resolution











Don Boyer President



ATTEST

Appendix E















p~












TOTAL PROJECT COSTS



1000 each 18 4000 each 4

3000 each 18

4000 each 5

2000 each 5


Sub-total


$868000 $ 500000 $ 58000 $ 250000 $ $345000 $ 95000 -$ $945000 $ 500 000 $ 155000 $680000 $ 500000 $ 30 000

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $100()0

$2966000

$5800841 $15000

$100000

$5915841

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $10_000

$ 1 500000 $ 216 000 $ 500000

$15000

$ 1500000 $ 310860 $ 500000

$

$

$

$

PELTON FUND TSID

60 000 250000 290000

150000

750000 $ -

$10000000

750000 $ 2854981

Grant Totals

BOR Other

OWEB PELTON

TSID

$ I $

$ $

$

1500000 310860 I 500000 7Sooool

2854981

FEDERAL FEDERAL


NON-FEDERAL


$ $

1810860 4104981 $

rr-b

Appendix F


E(Q~-tive Sunnnary

















IV The SWSE Program


























oHoe SIN$~ p~ograrn




19

middotmiddot

U$er exp~rience


stagesmiddot

Awaxenbull$s





statetamLSWCD s











pr~gr~nits







































20 pho-

















plex_ il~Ji3stion

21

1

l


N N

~ ~

)_)









tg~lCf$5

































23

~middot













menUbe sfr~tegies












middot middot







flal








25l

l

I









































~ j

i I

26

27













22

















23
















24


















25






56)












Phase 5






Phase 4






26









27







No


No


Yes


Yes

28









29












30

middot






No


No



31












None to date




32












Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860



33


Budget Proposal










34











35







36










Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860




37


38

Appendix A

Project Maps

Appendix B


amp Contract




NRCS 68-0436-1075

Introduction








agreement

I Authority




II Background















agreement








HI Purpose



producers lands

1V Responsibilities


















contracts

p4J


B TSID agrees to








Acts




























r41




project effort






objectives









sequestration




the A WEP program




















Act (28 USC 2671-80)













V Duration






p4b




VI Provisions








Accepted by


Date s-301 ~ 7






Halousek 40 6

Hoff 16 6

middotGrisham 476 6

Pr~te 14 6

Falls 55 6 6

Slagle 145 6 6



Vetterlein 17060 14





-shy

Pipe Size

8 14 6 6 6 6 4 6

12 6 6 6 6 6

6 6

6 6 6 6 6 6


2000 $14360 $3400 4300 $70864 $3400

$3400 $3400

7400 $81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$166920 $47600

-middot -shy --shy


$22840 $17760 $22840 $74264

$31464 $31464

$3400 $3400

$81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$28550 $28550 $3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$31464 $51390 $214520 $82854





Miller 174 6 6

Cornick 71 6 6

Stengal 107 6 6

Evered 153 6 6

LazyZ Partners 1056





6 6

ARNOLD 6 6


6 6 Total 89269


12 7700 $85008 12 138750 $3400 12 217500 $3400 12 88750 $3400 12 133750 $3400 12 191250 $3400

12 400000 $44160

16 4670 $51557 $3400 10 1942 $21440 $3400 8 500 $5520 $3400

$3400 16 II 3307 $54499 $3400 4 1200 $3400 1086 22600 $3400



8 3951 $3400 ~ 12 10491 $3400 8 3000 $3400 6 8700 $3400 6 $3400 8 5280 $3400 14 1000 $3400

6 500 $3400 6 700 $3400 6 800 $3400

88041 $262184 $74800

Pivot 2012

Costs

2013


Year 2012 - 2013

Owner Total

Water

Rights


Keeton B3


TUMALO FARMS 3303

FRONK 2405

Sub Total

Total 9758


Total Acres 200265


Size Size Size Pipe

6 6 6 1100

6 6 6 600

6 6 6 100

6 6 12 7000

6 6 6

6 6 6

6 6 6 500

6 6 6

8 8 8 4860

16 16 16 10 4670

6 4 4

6 6 4 1200 14 14 1086 22600 10 10i 8 42630

85260


Costs Costs Costs

$3400

$3400

$3400 $77280 $3400

$3400

$3400 $1750 $3400

$3400

$164317 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400 $3400


$486693 $88400


owner

middotFrench

M Cyrus

CEMENT DITCH

Mansker

Swaner

Boyer

lA Keeton

IZDITCH

IMcKeever

Poole

Barclay

King

ITewalt

BROWN DITCH

I Redfield

lsub Total

I Total

Total A middot Can

Total Acres


Rights

135 16 16 16 1100

1343 16 16 16 _sectQQ 16 6 16 100

6 6 16 6009

32 6 6 16

40 6 16 6

40 16 16 6 ~ 1155 16 16 6

18 18 18

116 116 116 10 11240

16 16 14 14

20 16 16 14 1200

17 114 114 11086 22600

16 110 110 Is 3951

16118 118 112 ~1 110 Ito 18 ~ 16 16 16 ~

147 16 16 16

112 112 18 -~ 116 116 114 1_QQQ

7288 _72JJ_

41765 151542

200265

~ Turnout Solid Set

Costs_ ~ts Costs

$3400

$3400

j1400 11FI~i1t poundftf $149744 $3400

$3400

$3400

_g400

_g4oo

_$400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400 10 llll $3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

~ ~000

$299489 ~00


Year 2012-2013


Rights Frankel 15 6 6 6 1100 $6809 $3400

Moen 8 6 6 6 600 $3714 $3400


Stephenson 7 16 16 16 10 4670 $82784 $3400

Booras 8 6 4 4 $3400 FampL 11 6 6 4 1200 $4200 $3400


Parker 4 10 10 8 3000 $18570 $3400

Molesworth 9 6 6 6 8700 $53853 $3400 6 6 6 $3400


Gillespie 56 $3400

Sub Total $3400

Total 440 64692 $539363 $74800


Total Acres 200265

Appendix C


Janl1aty 1ti2ot2

MareThala~Rer



OeatMatb


Appe-ndmiddotix D

Official Resolution











Don Boyer President



ATTEST

Appendix E















p~












TOTAL PROJECT COSTS



1000 each 18 4000 each 4

3000 each 18

4000 each 5

2000 each 5


Sub-total


$868000 $ 500000 $ 58000 $ 250000 $ $345000 $ 95000 -$ $945000 $ 500 000 $ 155000 $680000 $ 500000 $ 30 000

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $100()0

$2966000

$5800841 $15000

$100000

$5915841

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $10_000

$ 1 500000 $ 216 000 $ 500000

$15000

$ 1500000 $ 310860 $ 500000

$

$

$

$

PELTON FUND TSID

60 000 250000 290000

150000

750000 $ -

$10000000

750000 $ 2854981

Grant Totals

BOR Other

OWEB PELTON

TSID

$ I $

$ $

$

1500000 310860 I 500000 7Sooool

2854981

FEDERAL FEDERAL


NON-FEDERAL


$ $

1810860 4104981 $

rr-b

Appendix F


E(Q~-tive Sunnnary

















IV The SWSE Program


























oHoe SIN$~ p~ograrn




19

middotmiddot

U$er exp~rience


stagesmiddot

Awaxenbull$s





statetamLSWCD s











pr~gr~nits







































20 pho-

















plex_ il~Ji3stion

21

1

l


N N

~ ~

)_)









tg~lCf$5

































23

~middot













menUbe sfr~tegies












middot middot







flal








25l

l

I









































~ j

i I

26

27

















23
















24


















25






56)












Phase 5






Phase 4






26









27







No


No


Yes


Yes

28









29












30

middot






No


No



31












None to date




32












Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860



33


Budget Proposal










34











35







36










Pelton Fund $750000

OWEB $500000




Other 310860




37


38

Appendix A

Project Maps

Appendix B


amp Contract




NRCS 68-0436-1075

Introduction








agreement

I Authority




II Background















agreement








HI Purpose



producers lands

1V Responsibilities


















contracts

p4J


B TSID agrees to








Acts




























r41




project effort






objectives









sequestration




the A WEP program




















Act (28 USC 2671-80)













V Duration






p4b




VI Provisions








Accepted by


Date s-301 ~ 7






Halousek 40 6

Hoff 16 6

middotGrisham 476 6

Pr~te 14 6

Falls 55 6 6

Slagle 145 6 6



Vetterlein 17060 14





-shy

Pipe Size

8 14 6 6 6 6 4 6

12 6 6 6 6 6

6 6

6 6 6 6 6 6


2000 $14360 $3400 4300 $70864 $3400

$3400 $3400

7400 $81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$166920 $47600

-middot -shy --shy


$22840 $17760 $22840 $74264

$31464 $31464

$3400 $3400

$81696 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400 $3400

$28550 $28550 $3400 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400

$31464 $51390 $214520 $82854





Miller 174 6 6

Cornick 71 6 6

Stengal 107 6 6

Evered 153 6 6

LazyZ Partners 1056





6 6

ARNOLD 6 6


6 6 Total 89269


12 7700 $85008 12 138750 $3400 12 217500 $3400 12 88750 $3400 12 133750 $3400 12 191250 $3400

12 400000 $44160

16 4670 $51557 $3400 10 1942 $21440 $3400 8 500 $5520 $3400

$3400 16 II 3307 $54499 $3400 4 1200 $3400 1086 22600 $3400



8 3951 $3400 ~ 12 10491 $3400 8 3000 $3400 6 8700 $3400 6 $3400 8 5280 $3400 14 1000 $3400

6 500 $3400 6 700 $3400 6 800 $3400

88041 $262184 $74800

Pivot 2012

Costs

2013


Year 2012 - 2013

Owner Total

Water

Rights


Keeton B3


TUMALO FARMS 3303

FRONK 2405

Sub Total

Total 9758


Total Acres 200265


Size Size Size Pipe

6 6 6 1100

6 6 6 600

6 6 6 100

6 6 12 7000

6 6 6

6 6 6

6 6 6 500

6 6 6

8 8 8 4860

16 16 16 10 4670

6 4 4

6 6 4 1200 14 14 1086 22600 10 10i 8 42630

85260


Costs Costs Costs

$3400

$3400

$3400 $77280 $3400

$3400

$3400 $1750 $3400

$3400

$164317 $3400

$3400

$3400 $3400 $3400


$486693 $88400


owner

middotFrench

M Cyrus

CEMENT DITCH

Mansker

Swaner

Boyer

lA Keeton

IZDITCH

IMcKeever

Poole

Barclay

King

ITewalt

BROWN DITCH

I Redfield

lsub Total

I Total

Total A middot Can

Total Acres


Rights

135 16 16 16 1100

1343 16 16 16 _sectQQ 16 6 16 100

6 6 16 6009

32 6 6 16

40 6 16 6

40 16 16 6 ~ 1155 16 16 6

18 18 18

116 116 116 10 11240

16 16 14 14

20 16 16 14 1200

17 114 114 11086 22600

16 110 110 Is 3951

16118 118 112 ~1 110 Ito 18 ~ 16 16 16 ~

147 16 16 16

112 112 18 -~ 116 116 114 1_QQQ

7288 _72JJ_

41765 151542

200265

~ Turnout Solid Set

Costs_ ~ts Costs

$3400

$3400

j1400 11FI~i1t poundftf $149744 $3400

$3400

$3400

_g400

_g4oo

_$400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400 10 llll $3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

$3400

~ ~000

$299489 ~00


Year 2012-2013


Rights Frankel 15 6 6 6 1100 $6809 $3400

Moen 8 6 6 6 600 $3714 $3400


Stephenson 7 16 16 16 10 4670 $82784 $3400

Booras 8 6 4 4 $3400 FampL 11 6 6 4 1200 $4200 $3400


Parker 4 10 10 8 3000 $18570 $3400

Molesworth 9 6 6 6 8700 $53853 $3400 6 6 6 $3400


Gillespie 56 $3400

Sub Total $3400

Total 440 64692 $539363 $74800


Total Acres 200265

Appendix C


Janl1aty 1ti2ot2

MareThala~Rer



OeatMatb


Appe-ndmiddotix D

Official Resolution











Don Boyer President



ATTEST

Appendix E















p~












TOTAL PROJECT COSTS



1000 each 18 4000 each 4

3000 each 18

4000 each 5

2000 each 5


Sub-total


$868000 $ 500000 $ 58000 $ 250000 $ $345000 $ 95000 -$ $945000 $ 500 000 $ 155000 $680000 $ 500000 $ 30 000

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $100()0

$2966000

$5800841 $15000

$100000

$5915841

$18000 $16000 $54000 $20000 $10000 $10_000

$ 1 500000 $ 216 000 $ 500000

$15000

$ 1500000 $ 310860 $ 500000

$

$

$

$

PELTON FUND TSID

60 000 250000 290000

150000

750000 $ -

$10000000

750000 $ 2854981

Grant Totals

BOR Other

OWEB PELTON

TSID

$ I $

$ $

$

1500000 310860 I 500000 7Sooool

2854981

FEDERAL FEDERAL


NON-FEDERAL


$ $

1810860 4104981 $

rr-b

Appendix F


E(Q~-tive Sunnnary

















IV The SWSE Program


























oHoe SIN$~ p~ograrn




19

middotmiddot

U$er exp~rience


stagesmiddot

Awaxenbull$s





statetamLSWCD s











pr~gr~nits







































20 pho-

















plex_ il~Ji3stion

21

1

l


N N

~ ~

)_)









tg~lCf$5

































23

~middot













menUbe sfr~tegies












middot middot







flal








25l

l

I









































~ j

i I

26

27