FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29002

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleConjunctive Use and River Enhancement (CURE) for Habitat Improvement in the Upper Methow River
Proposal ID29002
OrganizationChewuch Basin Council, Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation (co-sponsor), Confederated Colvile Tribes (co-sponsor) (CBC)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameChris Johnson
Mailing addressPO Box 1608 Okanogan, WA. 98840
Phone / email5094220300 / Johnson_plan@hotmail.com
Manager authorizing this projectDave Sabold, Executive Director, CBC
Review cycleColumbia Cascade
Province / SubbasinColumbia Cascade / Methow
Short descriptionEnhance 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 speciesSteelhead, Spring Chinook, Summer Chinook, Bull Trout, Cutthroat Trout
Project location
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)


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 agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription
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

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 IDTitleDescription
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
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
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
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated 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

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Increase Streamflow c. Construct Pilot Wellfield 2003 $160,000 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated 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 2006FY 2007

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
1. Increase Streamflow d. Operate Pilot Test Phase 2003-2005 $120,000 Yes
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated 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

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2003 costSubcontractor
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
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated 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

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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
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 forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash 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


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.

Recommended Action
May 17, 2002


Lacks universal public acceptance. May be foregoing less expensive alternatives. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.
Jun 7, 2002


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."

Jul 19, 2002


Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Could improve survival if project provides seasonally increased flows in portions of the Methow and Chewuck Rivers.

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

Jul 26, 2002


Recommend deferral to Subbasin Planning. This kind of activity could support RPA 149
Do Not Fund
Oct 30, 2002