FY07-09 proposal 200717200
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | UPA Project - MVID West Canal Diversion and Headworks |
Proposal ID | 200717200 |
Organization | Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation |
Short description | Move POD 175' upstream by installing new concrete diversion headworks, realign 150' of West Canal intake and build new access road to connect new headworks, construct permanent channel-spanning natural rock roughened channel permanent diversion. |
Information transfer | This is not a research project and does not include data transfer; however, Bureau of Reclamation will be the repository of Project Completion Reports for those Methow subbasin projects for which it provides technical assistance. |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
Contacts
Contact | Organization | |
---|---|---|
Form submitter | ||
Jo Snyder | Bureau of Reclamation | jsnyder@pn.usbr.gov |
All assigned contacts | ||
Linda Hermeston | llhermeston@bpa.gov | |
Chris Johnson | Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation | msrf@communitynet.org |
Chris Johnson | Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation | msrf@communitynet.org |
Greg Knott | Bureau of Reclamation | gknott@pn.usbr.gov |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Columbia Cascade / Methow
Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
---|---|---|---|
48 22 13.1 | -120 11 38 | Twisp River | MVID West Canal Diversion is located on the south bank of the lower Twisp River at river mile 3.9. |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Chinook Upper Columbia River Spring ESUprimary: Steelhead Upper Columbia River ESU
secondary: Coho Unspecified Population
secondary: Bull Trout
Section 4. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishments |
---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
---|---|---|---|
Other: BPA; WDOE | [no entry] | Conversion to wells Project | Implemented in 1999 to 2000 to increase instream flows by converting approximately 40% of users served by the lower 3 miles of irrigation canal to wells. |
BPA | 199603401 | Methow River Valley Irr Dist | BPA Project #199603401 is an ongoing collaboration between MVID, BPA, and others to examine the feasibility of alternatives and recommend a project to address water conservation, benefit fish, and continue to provide water for irrigation. |
Other: WDFW | [no entry] | Remeshing of MVID Screens Project | Involved the remeshing of fish screens on the Twisp and Methow Rivers to meet NOAA Fisheries standards. Project was completed in the spring of 2001. |
Other: USBR, WDFW, MVID, BPA | [no entry] | New MVID West Fish Screen Facility | In 2004, a partnership of Reclamation, WDFW, MVID, and BPA completed construction of new state-of-the-art fish screens about 400 feet downstream from MVID West diversion. |
Other: US Forest Service | [no entry] | Other National Forest land fish passage improvement projects | For other fish passage improvement projects in the Twisp River watershed upstream from the MVID West Canal Diversion to be effective, migratory/anadromous salmonids must first make passage at the MVID West site; therefore, fish passage must be provided at the MVID West project. Several culvert replacement projects have recently been completed in the upper Twisp River tributary streams on National Forest land. These include Twisp River road crossings at War, North, Scatter, and Eagle Creeks; and at a Forest Service road crossing of Little Bridge Creek. Reclamation worked with the US Forest Service in 2005 to restore fish passage at Aspen Meadows Irrigation Diversion on Little Bridge Creek by replacing a passage barrier with a natural rock cascade. The proposed MVID West fish passage improvement work will be a critical contribution to the overall success of the extensive work that has been done in the Twisp River watershed to improve habitat connectivity for migratory salmonids. |
Other: SRFB | [no entry] | Okanogan County Fish Passage Barrier Survey | The MVID West project is related to the Okanogan County Fish Passage Barrier Survey (a project conducted by Okanogan Conservation District and Pacific Watershed Institute and funded by the Salmon Recovery Funding Board) which inventoried potential fish passage barriers and unscreened diversions in Okanogan County. This inventory identified MVID West diversion as a fish passage obstruction. BPA funded the Twisp River Watershed Assessment (project No. 00-1678) that Pacific Watershed Institute conducted in 2001 and 2002 and recommended to improve fish passage conditions at MVID West diversion with instream modifications. |
Other: BPA | [no entry] | Coordination with USFWS | The implementation of these projects requires coordination with other agencies. For BPA funded projects, US Fish and Wildlife Service must concur with the ESA-listed species effects analysis provided in the Biological Assessment for the project. The project must be consistent with the Terms and Conditions of the NOAA Fisheries HipBiOp. Projects involving instream work require that a JARPA application be sent to WDFW, which will provide a Hydraulic Permit Approval for the project. |
Other: Washington State Appropriated Funding | [no entry] | Lower MVID West Canal Renovation | In 2005, the Washington State Legislature approved $1.3 million in grant funding to renovate the lower portion of the MVID West Canal. This grant funding will allow a further reduction in MVID diversion rates. Thus water diverted by this new structure will flow into a renovated delivery system that equals efficiencies typically found in Washington State. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
---|---|---|---|
Accomplish Objectives | This objective includes those activities that support the administrative tasks associated with the project. These tasks help ensure the biological objectives are accomplished without adversely affecting other river geomorphological processes in the river. | Methow | |
Eliminate need for annual heavy equipment inriver | Eliminate the need for annual operation of heavy equipment in the river channel, which can release chemical contaminants, cause turbidity, and cause direct harm to fish, other aquatic organisms, and habitat. | Methow | Restore site of pushup diversion to natural riverbed; Construct permanent natural rock roughened channel |
Eliminate potential for redd stranding at intake | Eliminate the potential for stranding of spring Chinook salmon redds that may occur in the intake canal. | Methow | Replace present gravel substrate in intake canal with large rock substrate unsuitable for spawning. |
Pre- and Post-Project M&E | Pre- and post-project monitoring and evaluation program to track the progress of the project objectives over time. | Methow | M&E will be consistent with "Protocol for Monitoring Effectiveness of Fish Passage Projects." |
Twisp River Low-Flow Fish Passage Enhancement | The overall biological objective of the proposed project is to improve the habitat connectivity of the Twisp River watershed for migratory salmonids as well as for other aquatic organisms. The removal of a low-flow obstruction to fish passage should increase the productivity of the Twisp River for migratory salmonids by improving access to spawning habitat during low-flow periods. To determine if the project is successful in achieving this objective, the desired outcome can be measured by conducting redd surveys for spring Chinook salmon, summer steelhead, and fluvial bull trout. (See Monitoring and Evaluation section.) | Methow | Address: -low-flow barriers in lower Twisp, -adverse effects of irrig div dams (NPCC Methow Subbasin Plan-Anthropogenic Effects section), -passage barriers (Methow Subbasin Plan Management Plan sec, Key Limiting Factors, Table 54). |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Manage and Administer Projects | 119: Project Management and Administration (MSRF) | Contractor’s work to manage ground efforts or to manage subcontractors, administrative work in support of BPA’s programmatic requirements such as metric reporting, financial reporting, development of Statement of Work | 10/1/2006 | 10/1/2007 | $27,250 |
Biological objectives Accomplish Objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Remove/Install Diversion | 84: Remove existing diversion and headworks, replace headworks | $80,000 of anticipated grant funding is deducted from this work element budget and total project cost (Detailed in Section 8). Remove existing pushup dam and headworks, regrade river channel to natural streambed; install a new diversion headworks about 175 feet upstream from the existing diversion, realign 150 feet of West Canal to connect new headworks. | 10/1/2006 | 10/1/2007 | $77,700 |
Biological objectives Eliminate need for annual heavy equipment inriver Eliminate potential for redd stranding at intake Twisp River Low-Flow Fish Passage Enhancement |
Metrics * # of miles of habitat accessed: 138 miles of u/s aquatic habitat |
||||
Install Fish Passage Structure | 184: Construct a roughened channel | $80,000 of anticipated grant funding is deducted from this work element budget and total project cost (Detail in Section 8). Construct a channel-spanning roughened channel upstream from existing diversion to improve flow and provide for fish passage. | 10/1/2006 | 10/1/2007 | $84,800 |
Biological objectives Eliminate need for annual heavy equipment inriver Twisp River Low-Flow Fish Passage Enhancement |
Metrics * # of miles of habitat accessed: 138 miles of u/s aquatic habitat |
||||
Operate and Maintain Habitat/Passage | 186: Intake Canal and Access road relocation | Construct new site access road compatible with construction traffic, realign upstream ends of present intake canal and access road and, following construction, return O&M access roads to their pre-construction state. | 10/1/2006 | 10/1/2007 | $63,000 |
Biological objectives Eliminate need for annual heavy equipment inriver |
Metrics |
||||
Plant Vegetation | 47: Revegetate disburbed areas | All disturbed areas, except for roads and areas lower than normal water surface, will be revegetated in spring 2007 following construction activities. A mix of native vegetation and seed, approved by regulators, will be used. | 2/15/2007 | 10/1/2007 | $5,000 |
Biological objectives Twisp River Low-Flow Fish Passage Enhancement |
Metrics |
||||
Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | 183: Progress and Status Reports (MSRF) | Work to prepare and submit annual reports; non-annual reports required or produced for a contract such as Pisces, as-built drawings, and completion reports detailing the deliverables for each work element in the project; and either monthly or quarterly, the status of milestones and deliverables in each contract. | 10/1/2007 | 9/30/2009 | $9,000 |
Biological objectives Accomplish Objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | 157: Post-project monitoring | The proposed monitoring plan consists of pre-project and post-project photo point monitoring; pre-project and annual post-project measurements of fish passage attributes at low flows (thalweg depths and velocities) in the stream channel at the diversion - weekly at flows below 40 cfs (generally August and September) to ensure that the diversion structure meets its design criteria for fish passage; and monitoring of actual fish passage using redd count survey data for spring Chinook salmon and steelhead (WDFW redd surveys) and bull trout (USFS redd surveys). A post-project monitoring and evaluation program is necessary to track the progress of the project objectives over time. | 1/1/2007 | 9/30/2010 | $4,000 |
Biological objectives Pre- and Post-Project M&E |
Metrics Focal Area: At diversion site |
||||
Operate and Maintain Habitat/Passage | 186: Adaptive Management and Structure Adjustment | MSRF will continue to provide technical assistance on this project through one full cycle of high and low flows in the event the structures require adjustment. This is a fix-it-loop work element to ensure that the constructed project functions as the design intended. | 12/16/2006 | 12/16/2009 | $5,000 |
Biological objectives Eliminate need for annual heavy equipment inriver |
Metrics |
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Supplies | Supplies, materials, and equipment to install rock roughened channel fish passage and headgate structure. Discounts $80,000 grant funding contribution | $81,500 | $0 | $0 |
Travel | Mileage - Project Manager MSRF | $1,000 | $1,000 | $250 |
Overhead | Office Expenditures and Supplies MSRF | $400 | $400 | $200 |
Personnel | Reclamation - Construction Inspection under contract to BPA | $45,750 | $0 | $0 |
Personnel | Project Manager MSRF | $14,000 | $4,000 | $4,000 |
Personnel | Contract Administrator MSRF | $5,000 | $2,000 | $2,000 |
Personnel | Post-construction monitoring (MSRF) | $2,000 | $1,000 | $1,000 |
Personnel | Contractor Labor. Discounts $80,000 grant funding contribution | $86,250 | $0 | $0 |
Travel | Construction Inspection (Reclamation) | $10,000 | $0 | $0 |
Other | Adaptive management incl. labor and supplies. | $0 | $0 | $5,000 |
Personnel | Labor for Revegetation | $2,000 | $1,000 | $500 |
Supplies | Supplies for Revegetation | $1,000 | $500 | $0 |
Personnel | Progress and status reporting | $1,000 | $1,000 | $2,000 |
Totals | $249,900 | $10,900 | $14,950 |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
Total itemized budget: | $275,750 |
Total work element budget: | $275,750 |
Cost sharing
Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chelan Co. PUD Tributary Fund | Construction Grant | $80,000 | $0 | $0 | Cash | Under Review |
Methow Valley Irrigation District | Site Monitoring | $5,000 | $0 | $0 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
Reclamation | Engineering, Survey, and Design | $75,000 | $0 | $0 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
Reclamation | Federal, State, and Local Permitting Tech Assistance | $20,000 | $0 | $0 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
Reclmation | Post Construction Reporting | $0 | $15,000 | $0 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
Washington SRFB | Round 6 Grant. Cost share will be applied to construction | $75,000 | $5,000 | $0 | Cash | Under Review |
Totals | $255,000 | $20,000 | $0 |
Section 9. Project future
FY 2010 estimated budget: $2,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $2,000 |
Comments: Post-construction monitoring |
Future O&M costs:
Termination date: 9/30/2010
Comments: Reclamation will remain involved in this project through one full cycle of high and low flows in the event the structures require adjustment to perform as the design intended.
Final deliverables: MSRF will provide final reporting to BPA at the close of this project to document objectives achieved.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Do Not Fund |
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense |
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
NPCC comments: The ISRP is not requesting a response, but the proposal would be improved by addressing the following comments: This proposal is to re-engineer a large water diversion intake on the lower Twisp River. The new irrigation intake will make the irrigation system more efficient. However, benefits to ESA-listed salmonids are hard to determine without more information about the project than is provided in the proposal. Reducing the amount of water withdrawn from the Twisp River should have biological benefits. The biological effects of other elements of the project were less clear. Under what flow conditions does the existing structure pose a significant migration barrier? What are the contingency plans in the event the roughened channel is damaged during freshets? Will the new headworks be screened to prevent entrainment of juvenile salmonids? Answers to these questions would have made the proposal easier to evaluate. The availability of a significant amount of in-kind support is a positive element of this proposal. Technical and scientific background: The existing diversion required annual construction of a late summer push-up dam, which was believed to hinder upstream migration of Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout, or even to block migration completely during exceptionally dry years. The narrative does not quantify the extent to which spawning migration has been hindered or blocked, and in fact almost all spawning occurs above the existing intake anyway. Streamflows appear to be the real limiting factor to spawning migrations. This project will provide improvement in flow for this particular reach. The existing diversion could divert 30 cfs and the new structure will reduce irrigation withdrawals to 11 cfs plus a few additional cfs for Chain of Lakes wildlife mitigation. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The proposal does a generally good job of describing its relationship with the Methow subbasin plans and regional restoration programs. Relationships to other projects: The relationship to other efforts is described. Especially relevant are the passage and habitat projects that have been implemented in the Twisp River upstream of the project area. The proposal asserts that these upstream projects depend on improved fish passage at the intake site. This may be true, although the evidence that the current diversion is a significant limiting factor was not completely clear. Objectives: The objectives of the project are clearly explained and timelines are adequately described. One of the objectives is to discourage Chinook spawning in the vicinity of the diversion intake (which is dewatered when irrigation season is over). The proposal suggests that this be done by using very coarse substrate -- too large for spawning gravel. It is possible that spring freshets may re-sort the substrate in the spring and recreate suitable spawning conditions at the new intake. The full-spanning roughened channel structure is designed to withstand relatively high flows, but it might be damaged by bedload transport or fluvial large woody debris (LWD) during exceptional runoff events. Continued maintenance may be necessary, and the ability of the new structure to pass fish cannot be adequately evaluated until it is installed and has survived several seasons. Tasks (work elements) and methods: Most of the work elements are well described. The treatment of the revegetation aspect of the project was somewhat abbreviated. There also was no indication that the new headworks would be screened to prevent entrainment of juvenile salmon and trout in the irrigation canal. Unless reviewers missed it, surely WDFW will require screening. The revegetation plans seem adequate. Monitoring and evaluation: The monitoring plan includes assessment of the physical attributes of the project (flow, substrate, water depth etc.) and plans to take advantage of ongoing redd monitoring efforts to assess whether or not fish passage improves after the project. The monitoring plan also should evaluate spawning at the new intake (or lack of spawning), and entrainment of fish in the diversion pipe. Facilities, equipment, and personnel seem reasonable. Information transfer: Project completion reports and Bureau of Reclamation progress reports are the only mechanisms of information transfer mentioned. Availability of information on this project may be useful for similar projects in the basin and a more complete information transfer process would be valuable. Benefits to focal and non-focal species: It was difficult to estimate the benefits of this project given the information in the proposal, but some benefits to Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout seem likely. Some impact to non-focal species will occur during the construction phase of the project. Dewatering the Twisp River for 40-60 days during intake relocation will surely impact the benthic community in the 225 ft length that will be dried out. Increased numbers of spawning salmon and steelhead in the Twisp may provide a food resource for some non-focal species that consume carcasses.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
NPCC comments: The ISRP is not requesting a response, but the proposal would be improved by addressing the following comments: This proposal is to re-engineer a large water diversion intake on the lower Twisp River. The new irrigation intake will make the irrigation system more efficient. However, benefits to ESA-listed salmonids are hard to determine without more information about the project than is provided in the proposal. Reducing the amount of water withdrawn from the Twisp River should have biological benefits. The biological effects of other elements of the project were less clear. Under what flow conditions does the existing structure pose a significant migration barrier? What are the contingency plans in the event the roughened channel is damaged during freshets? Will the new headworks be screened to prevent entrainment of juvenile salmonids? Answers to these questions would have made the proposal easier to evaluate. The availability of a significant amount of in-kind support is a positive element of this proposal. Technical and scientific background: The existing diversion required annual construction of a late summer push-up dam, which was believed to hinder upstream migration of Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout, or even to block migration completely during exceptionally dry years. The narrative does not quantify the extent to which spawning migration has been hindered or blocked, and in fact almost all spawning occurs above the existing intake anyway. Streamflows appear to be the real limiting factor to spawning migrations. This project will provide improvement in flow for this particular reach. The existing diversion could divert 30 cfs and the new structure will reduce irrigation withdrawals to 11 cfs plus a few additional cfs for Chain of Lakes wildlife mitigation. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The proposal does a generally good job of describing its relationship with the Methow subbasin plans and regional restoration programs. Relationships to other projects: The relationship to other efforts is described. Especially relevant are the passage and habitat projects that have been implemented in the Twisp River upstream of the project area. The proposal asserts that these upstream projects depend on improved fish passage at the intake site. This may be true, although the evidence that the current diversion is a significant limiting factor was not completely clear. Objectives: The objectives of the project are clearly explained and timelines are adequately described. One of the objectives is to discourage Chinook spawning in the vicinity of the diversion intake (which is dewatered when irrigation season is over). The proposal suggests that this be done by using very coarse substrate -- too large for spawning gravel. It is possible that spring freshets may re-sort the substrate in the spring and recreate suitable spawning conditions at the new intake. The full-spanning roughened channel structure is designed to withstand relatively high flows, but it might be damaged by bedload transport or fluvial large woody debris (LWD) during exceptional runoff events. Continued maintenance may be necessary, and the ability of the new structure to pass fish cannot be adequately evaluated until it is installed and has survived several seasons. Tasks (work elements) and methods: Most of the work elements are well described. The treatment of the revegetation aspect of the project was somewhat abbreviated. There also was no indication that the new headworks would be screened to prevent entrainment of juvenile salmon and trout in the irrigation canal. Unless reviewers missed it, surely WDFW will require screening. The revegetation plans seem adequate. Monitoring and evaluation: The monitoring plan includes assessment of the physical attributes of the project (flow, substrate, water depth etc.) and plans to take advantage of ongoing redd monitoring efforts to assess whether or not fish passage improves after the project. The monitoring plan also should evaluate spawning at the new intake (or lack of spawning), and entrainment of fish in the diversion pipe. Facilities, equipment, and personnel seem reasonable. Information transfer: Project completion reports and Bureau of Reclamation progress reports are the only mechanisms of information transfer mentioned. Availability of information on this project may be useful for similar projects in the basin and a more complete information transfer process would be valuable. Benefits to focal and non-focal species: It was difficult to estimate the benefits of this project given the information in the proposal, but some benefits to Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout seem likely. Some impact to non-focal species will occur during the construction phase of the project. Dewatering the Twisp River for 40-60 days during intake relocation will surely impact the benthic community in the 225 ft length that will be dried out. Increased numbers of spawning salmon and steelhead in the Twisp may provide a food resource for some non-focal species that consume carcasses.