FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29002
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
Title | Type |
---|---|
29002 Narrative | Narrative |
29002 Sponsor Response to ISRP | Response |
Response in Opposition from Okanogan Wilderness League | Response |
Response in Opposition from USFWS | Response |
29002 Response in Opposition from Okanogan County Farm Bureau | Response |
29002 Powerpoint Presentation | Powerpoint Presentation |
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Conjunctive Use and River Enhancement (CURE) for Habitat Improvement in the Upper Methow River |
Proposal ID | 29002 |
Organization | Chewuch Basin Council, Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation (co-sponsor), Confederated Colvile Tribes (co-sponsor) (CBC) |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Name | Chris Johnson |
Mailing address | PO Box 1608 Okanogan, WA. 98840 |
Phone / email | 5094220300 / Johnson_plan@hotmail.com |
Manager authorizing this project | Dave Sabold, Executive Director, CBC |
Review cycle | Columbia Cascade |
Province / Subbasin | Columbia Cascade / Methow |
Short description | Enhance late summer streamflows in the Upper Methow river through direct streamflow augmentation using groudwater from the prolific Methow Aquifer. Groundwater pumping rates of up to 25 cfs for periods of up to 90 days (4,600 AF storage equivalent). |
Target species | Steelhead, Spring Chinook, Summer Chinook, Bull Trout, Cutthroat Trout |
Project location
Latitude | Longitude | Description |
---|---|---|
48.5775 | -120.3825 | Wellfield Area |
48.5775 | -120.3825 | Habitat Enhancement Reach Methow River (Upper end) |
48.4767 | -120.1817 | Habitat Enhancement Reach Methow River (lower end) |
48.4758 | -120.1783 | Irrigation Withdrawal Methow River |
48.5733 | -120.18 | Habitat Enhancement Reach Chewuch River (Upper end) |
48.4767 | -120.1817 | Habitat Enhancement Reach Chewuch River (Lower end) |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
RPA |
---|
Action 3 |
Action 24 |
Action 25 |
Action 27 |
Action 28 |
Action 30 |
Action 149 |
Action 151 |
Action 152 |
Action 199 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
---|---|---|---|
NMFS | Action 149 | NMFS | BOR shall initiate programs in three priority subbasins (identified in the Basinwide Recovery Strategy) per year over 5 years, in coordination with NMFS, FWS, the states and others, to address all flow, passage, and screening problems in each subbasin over 10 years. The Corps shall implement demonstration projects to improve habitat in subbasins where water-diversion-related problems could cause take of listed species. Under the NWPPC program, BPA addresses passage, screening, and flow problems, where they are not the responsibility of others. BPA expects to expand on these measures in coordination with the NWPPC process to complement BOR actions described in the action above. |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishment |
---|---|
1990 | Numerical Groundwater Flow Model of Upper Methow Aquifer System (Private Developer) |
1994 | Baseline Water Budget for Methow Basin (Okanogan County Pilot Planning Project) |
1995 | Development of First Permitted Aquifer Storage and Recovery System in Oregon (City of Salem) |
1999 | Habitat Assessment for CURE proposal on Snoqualmie River (East King County Regional Water Association) |
2000 | Salmon Creek Project (CCT - co-sponsor) |
2000 | Water Quantity Assessment for Methow Basin and Sub-Watersheds (Methow Basin Planning Unit) |
2001 | Chewuch Sub-Basin Streamflow and Habitat Analysis, Habitat Conservation Planning (Chewuch Basin Council) |
2001 | Groundwater Flow Augmentation of USFWS Klamath National Wildlife Refuge (US Fish & Wildlife Service) |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Project ID | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
199603401 | Methow River Valley Irrigation District | Similar concept : Addresses approach that benefits fish and continues to provide water for irrigation. |
199802500 | Early Winters Creek Habitat Restoration | Similar objectives : Restore historic fish, riparian and floodplain habitat, identify methods to augment instream flow to increase spawner success and juvenile survival. |
199802900 | Goat Creek Instream Habitat Restoration | Similar location : Goat Creek is closest tributary to CURE. Mainstem flow improvements will complement restoration activities on this tributary. |
200106300 | Methow Basin Screening | Similar location : Fish screen facilities and new fish screen construction funded by BPA for Foghorn, Rockview, McKinney Mountain, and Kum Holloway diversions are within the enhancement reach for CURE. FLow improvements will complement screening work. |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Increase Streamflow | a. Prepare Plans and Specs | 2003 | $20,000 | |
1. Increase Streamflow | b. Permitting | 2003 | $30,000 | |
2. Monitor Habitat Benefits | a. Develop Monitoring Plan | 2003 | $20,000 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1-e. Imlementation Planning | 2005 | 2005 | $50,000 |
1-f. Implentation Permitting | 2005 | 2005 | $50,000 |
2-d. Long Term Monitoring Plans | 2005 | 2005 | $20,000 |
3 a. Water Supply Planning | 2005 | 2005 | $50,000 |
3 b. Water Supply Permitting | 2005 | 2005 | $50,000 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
FY 2005 |
---|
$220,000 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Increase Streamflow | c. Construct Pilot Wellfield | 2003 | $160,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1g Construct Final Wellfield | 2006 | 2006 | $800,000 |
3c. Construct River Intake | 2006 | 2006 | $350,000 |
3d. Construct Conveyance | 2007 | 2007 | $350,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
FY 2006 | FY 2007 |
---|---|
$800,000 | $700,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Increase Streamflow | d. Operate Pilot Test Phase | 2003-2005 | $120,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
1-h. Operate Final Wellfield | 2007 | 2057 | $200,000 |
3e. Operate Pump Station | 2007 | 2057 | $1,162,050 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
FY 2007 |
---|
$1,362,050 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
---|---|---|---|---|
2. Monitor Habitat Benefits | b. Pilot Monitoring | 2003-2005 | $100,000 | Yes |
2. Monitor Habitat Benefits | c. Pilot Reporting | 2003-2005 | $50,000 | Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
---|---|---|---|
2e. Implementation Monitoring and Reports | 2006 | 2056 | $750,000 |
3f. Operations Monitoring and Reports | 2006 | 2056 | $750,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
FY 2007 |
---|
$1,500,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
---|---|---|
Personnel | $50,500 | |
Fringe | $12,600 | |
Supplies | $5,000 | |
Travel | $5,000 | |
Indirect | $10,000 | |
Capital | Pumps, piping, easement, riverbank structure, wellhouse | $20,000 |
NEPA | NEPA will be completed through an HCP | $46,900 |
Subcontractor | Golder Associates Inc. | $200,000 |
Subcontractor | Drilling Contractor | $150,000 |
$500,000 |
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2003 cost | $500,000 |
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
Total FY 2003 budget request | $500,000 |
FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
% change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
---|---|---|---|
Chewuch Basin Council | Technical Support for HCP and NEPA | $150,000 | cash |
US Fish & Wildlife Service | Funding for HCP development | $100,000 | cash |
Other budget explanation
Note that 2007 O&M and M&E costs are expressed as NPV costs for a 50-year project. Please see CURE Budget Back-Up.Doc This contains three tables. Table 1 shows a graphic version of the budget, broken out by objective, task, and fiscal year. Table 2 shows the task schedule in a similar format. Table 3 shows the basis for the O&M costs of the project when it reaches implemenation stage in 2007. These costs are based on the IDEAB economic analysis of the Salmon Creek pump exchage project, and shows the range of potential NPV pumping costs for the project.
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
A response is needed. The potential benefits or harm to fish at one of the most important spawning areas in the Methow, in the gaining reach downstream of the Boesel fault, are not adequately described. The assumption is that only benefits exist, but the proponents should address the potential of decreased cool water upwelling in this reach.The potential long-term benefits to fish would seem to be increased flow in the lower Chewuch. The proponents should provide evidence that the water will stay in the Chewuch and provide estimates of increased production of anadromous fish in Chewuch River.
The proponents should provide evidence that this project has high priority in a watershed assessment of the Chewuch River in comparison to other potential means to provide increased flows for the benefit of fish and wildlife such as purchase or donation of water rights for instream flow, improved irrigation methods with water savings, etc. One question that arose after the presentation was "Could they leave water in the Chewuch and then pump it from the Chewuch back into the irrigation ditch at the confluence with the Methow." This project needs to be considered in the context of coordinated water management in the entire Upper Methow and a watershed assessment.
This is an interesting proposal for rerouting flows in the coupled hyporheic and surface water flows. The proponents believe that there is enough delay in the hyporheic (groundwater) movement that they can pump 1000 feet from the stream channel and not decrease stream flows at that point in time and space. Thus, the wells could increase stream flow and the water extracted would be recharged from the stream in the spring. There is pump testing and modeling to support this view. There is good cost share (250K for 500K project), but high out-year costs (over 3 million in 2007) that should be considered by Council. Council should consider relative costs of alternatives for providing long term increased flow in the Chewuch and Methow. Regardless of the priority of this project in a watershed assessment, the ISRP would not be in favor of committing support beyond the initial modeling and pilot tests.
Monitoring and evaluation plans should be given in detail for fish and aquatic resources, including baseline pre-project monitoring in the Chewuch and Methow. The specific sample areas, methods, and sampling frequency and intensity (i.e., how many samples of what type where and when) need to be specified.
Comment:
Lacks universal public acceptance. May be foregoing less expensive alternatives. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.Comment:
Fundable in part only for the pilot study at low priority. The response focuses on the pilot aspect of the proposal. As such, it would be a valid and probably useful scientific test, whether or not the bigger idea has merit and would be acceptable. The ISRP was initially skeptical, but now see some merit in a test well and pumping tests. That pilot study would be useful and is fundable.The ISRP was not convinced that increased flow in the Methow River through the proposed upwelling reach would be of significant benefit to fish. Pumping from the groundwater storage above this reach may result in harm. The ISRP would not be in favor of committing support beyond the initial modeling and pilot tests. The proponents did not provide detailed plans as requested for baseline pre-project and long term monitoring in the Chewuch and Methow Rivers. It is not possible to review a proposal that"...will include a detailed M&E plan, developed in coordination with local agency biologists."
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUCould improve survival if project provides seasonally increased flows in portions of the Methow and Chewuck Rivers.
Comments
While the project is not already required, existing section 7 consultation requires flow improvement on the Chewuck. The project is intended to minimize the impact of that consultation to the irrigation district covered by that consultation. The withdrawal of water from the Methow aquifer may decrease upwelling and alter other hyporheic conditions in an important spring chinook spawning area.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Recommend deferral to Subbasin Planning. This kind of activity could support RPA 149Comment: