FY07-09 proposal 200725100
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | UPA Project - Methow Valley Irrigation District East Diversion Dam Replacement |
| Proposal ID | 200725100 |
| Organization | Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation |
| Short description | This project will remove the present channel-spanning irrigation diversion dam and replace it with a reinforced earth and rock wing dam parallel to the thalweg. This project will also re-open 1/4 mile of side channel habitat blocked by a pushup berm. |
| Information transfer | This project is not a research project and does not include information transfer: however, the Bureau of Reclamation will be the repository for projects for which it provides technical assistance. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Greg Knott | Bureau of Reclamation | [email protected] |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Linda Hermeston | [email protected] | |
| Chris Johnson | Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation | [email protected] |
| Greg Knott | Bureau of Reclamation | [email protected] |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Columbia Cascade / Methow
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 44 25 8.2 | 120 8 25.6 | Methow River | R.M. 44.8 on Mainstem Methow River above Twisp |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Chinook Upper Columbia River Spring ESUprimary: Chinook Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESU
primary: 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 199603401 | Methow River Valley Irr Dist | There is an ongoing partnership between MVID and the Yakama Nation to examine the feasibility of alternatives and recommend a project to address water conservation, benefit fish, and continue to provide water for irrigation. |
| BPA | [no entry] | Reorganization to Wells | The Reorganization to Wells Project was implemented from 1999-2000 to shut off the lower ditch and convert those individuals served by the irrigation canal to wells. |
| BPA | [no entry] | MVID East fish screen | In 2004, a partnership of Reclamation, WDFW, MVID, and BPA completed construction of a new state-of-the-art fish screen at the MVID East diversion. |
| Other: WDFW | [no entry] | Remeshing of MVID Fish Screens | This project involved the remeshing of fish screens on the Twisp and Methow Rivers to meet NOAA Fisheries standards. This WDFW funded project was completed in the spring of 2001. |
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 | [Strategy left blank] |
| Achieve Properly Functioning Riparian Conditions | By replacing the irrigation diversion there will be no need to annually construct a pushup dam which blocks a half mile of side channel and floodplain habitat on the west side of the river. Reconnecting the floodplain will help achieve an objective of the Methow Subbasin Plan to achieve properly functioning riparian conditions (at least 75% of normative for riparian vegetation and connectivity to the floodplain/off-channel habitat. | Methow | Restore and reconnect wetlands, floodplains, side channels and other off-channel habitat. |
| Eliminate need for annual heavy equipment in river | Replacing the current diversion addresses the adverse effects of operating heavy equipment in the river, which kills juvenile fish, creates turbidity, and releases chemical contaminants into aquatic habitat. | Methow | Reduce turbidity to increase steelhead survival in spawning, egg incubation and fry colonization life stages. |
| Increase Rearing Habitat | The present diversion dam is being bypassed by the main river as it migrates to a side channel to the west. The side channel currently must be blocked with a "pushup" dam using heavy equipment each year to maintain flow into the canal. As a result, about half a mile of side channel habitat is dewatered. By relocating the diversion upstream, the need for a pushup dam is eliminated, allowing natural rewatering of the existing side channel. Fish species that would benefit from additional rearing habitat include three TES species: steelhead, spring Chinook salmon and bull trout. Increased rearing habitat could benefit Coho salmon and sockeye salmon. Both fish species have been observed near the MVID East Diversion. | Methow | Restore and reconnect wetlands, floodplains, side-channels and other off-channel habitats. |
| Increase Spawning Habitat | A key feature of the project is the re-watering of the side channel on west side of the main channel, providing more spawning habitat for steelhead, spring Chinook salmon, summer Chinook salmon, and Coho salmon. There may be an increase in spawning gravel in the main channel due to the lower velocities which would allow for the acuumulation of gravels. | Methow | Increasing key habitat quantity will increase survival for summer Chinook, spring Chinook and steelhead in the spawning, egg incubation and fry colonization life stages. |
| Methow River low-flow fish passage enhancement | Remove the existing channel spanning structure and rebuild with a fish friendly diversion with no drop structures, in a new location. The MVID East Diversion has been identified in the Obstruction Form Workbook Appendix of the Methow Sub-basin Management Plan as being a 60% barrier to fish passage for fish in the following life stages: emerging fry, fingerlings and juvenile fish. | Methow | Remove, replace or modify diversion dams or other structures affecting fish passage. |
| Pre-and Post-Project Monitoring and Evaluation | Pre- and post-project monitoring and evaluation program will be implemented to track the progress of the proposed objectives over time. | Methow | Monitoring and evaluation strategy that is consistent with PNAMP protocols. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plant Vegetation | Post Construction Site Revegetation | Revegetation will occur along east bank where construction will have disturbed existing vegetation. Native riparian vegetation will be reestablished on 1.5 acres. Revegetation objective is to provide native cover for wing dam intake canal to enhance habitat value. | 10/1/2008 | 10/1/2009 | $20,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics * # of acres of planted: 1.5 |
||||
| Realign, Connect, and/or Create Channel | Reconnect the West Channel by removing the Pushup Dam that Blocks Access to the 0.5 Mile Side Channel | Remove pushup dam material associated with old diversion to reconnect existing West Channel to river. The side channel will provide additional off-channel habitat. | 10/1/2007 | 10/1/2008 | $66,000 |
|
Biological objectives Increase Rearing Habitat Increase Spawning Habitat |
Metrics * # of stream miles treated, including off-channels, after realignment: 0.5 |
||||
| Operate and Maintain Habitat/Passage | Adaptive Management | Using data obtained from monitoring, intake canal habitat will be improved if necessary. | 10/1/2008 | 9/30/2010 | $10,000 |
|
Biological objectives Eliminate need for annual heavy equipment in river |
Metrics |
||||
| Remove/Install Diversion | Remove existing diversion replace wing upstream wing dam | $600,000 of anticipated grant funding is deducted from this work element budget and total project cost (Detailed in Section 8). Remove existing wooden dam, regrade river channel to natural streambed; install a new rock wing dam diversion parallel to thalweg 1500' upstream from the existing diversion. | 10/1/2007 | 10/1/2008 | $465,000 |
|
Biological objectives Eliminate need for annual heavy equipment in river Methow River low-flow fish passage enhancement |
Metrics * # of miles of habitat accessed: 246 |
||||
| Manage and Administer Projects | Manage and Administer Projects | 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 | 4/1/2007 | 9/30/2010 | $52,400 |
|
Biological objectives Accomplish Objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | Produce Status, Annual, and Pisces Reports (MSRF) | This element includes work to prepare and submit annual reports; non-annual reports required or produced for a contract such as 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 | 4/1/2007 | 10/1/2009 | $0 |
|
Biological objectives Accomplish Objectives |
Metrics |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Post Construction Effectiveness Monitoring | Effectiveness monitoring of fish passage, and habitat surveys of constructed intake canal habitat | 4/1/2008 | 9/30/2009 | $4,000 |
|
Biological objectives |
Metrics Secondary R, M, and E Type: 1 Secondary R, M, and E Type: 1 |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | Project Manager (MSRF) | $14,000 | $10,000 | $6,000 |
| Personnel | Contract Administration (MSRF) | $10,000 | $4,000 | $6,000 |
| Supplies | Office Expenditures and Supplies (MSRF) | $500 | $500 | $500 |
| Travel | Travel for Project Manager (MSRF) | $300 | $300 | $300 |
| Personnel | Reclamation - Construction Inspection under contract to BPA | $15,000 | $50,000 | $0 |
| Supplies | Supplies, materials, and equipment to remove old diversion and install rock wing dike. Discounts $600,000 grant funding contribution (See below) | $0 | $450,000 | $0 |
| Personnel | Revegetation Labor | $0 | $8,000 | $4,000 |
| Supplies | Revegetation Supplies | $0 | $5,000 | $3,000 |
| Travel | Travel for Construction Inspection (Reclamation) | $5,000 | $15,000 | $0 |
| Other | Adaptive management of intake canal | $0 | $0 | $10,000 |
| Totals | $44,800 | $542,800 | $29,800 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $617,400 |
| Total work element budget: | $617,400 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Douglas County PUD Tributary Habitat Fund | Construction grant | $0 | $300,000 | $0 | Cash | Under Development |
| Methow Valley Irrigation District | Pre-construction clrearing and excavation | $15,000 | $0 | $0 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| Reclamation | Permitting Technical Assistance | $20,000 | $0 | $0 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| Reclamation | Engineering survey and design | $250,000 | $0 | $0 | In-Kind | Confirmed |
| SRFB Round 6 | Construction grant | $0 | $50,000 | $250,000 | Cash | Confirmed |
| Totals | $285,000 | $350,000 | $250,000 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $2,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $2,000 |
Comments: Post-construction Monitoring |
Future O&M costs: There are no operations and maintenance costs associated with this structure; however, adaptive management plans will be applied to ensure the habitat efectiveness of the intake canal as it revegetates.
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 function 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
NPCC comments: Overall, this is an excellent "on-the-ground" project to improve habitat and fish. This proposal deserves a high priority. More scientific and technical information (with references) on the proposed installation (permanent wing dam diversion structure) and alternative methods, e.g., complete removal of the instream diversions and fish screens/replacement with wells and pressurized pipes, would have been useful. Examples of other areas where this type of irrigation water diversion installation has increased salmon abundance would have been useful. Pre- and post-replacement monitoring and evaluation and plans for information transfer are the weakest parts of this proposal. Redd surveys might not the best measure of success, because adult salmon returns could be affected by many other external factors. While the project is likely to have immediate benefits to focal species, only long-term monitoring can show whether these benefits will persist. There is no discussion in the narrative about other activities (upstream or downstream) in the basin that might compromise benefits to focal species. It is not clear from the narrative whether the new upstream location for the diversion dam is important habitat for focal species and how this habitat will be affected. There will be some attempts (biologists with nets) to rescue fish stranded by construction of the new dam. A discussion of potential adverse affects of dam replacement on habitat/populations of native biota would have been useful. The project will produce progress and annual reports. Plans for publication and or release and long-term storage of data, photographs, and meta-data resulting from pre- and post-Monitoring and evaluation were not described.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC comments: Overall, this is an excellent "on-the-ground" project to improve habitat and fish. This proposal deserves a high priority. More scientific and technical information (with references) on the proposed installation (permanent wing dam diversion structure) and alternative methods, e.g., complete removal of the instream diversions and fish screens/replacement with wells and pressurized pipes, would have been useful. Examples of other areas where this type of irrigation water diversion installation has increased salmon abundance would have been useful. Pre- and post-replacement monitoring and evaluation and plans for information transfer are the weakest parts of this proposal. Redd surveys might not the best measure of success, because adult salmon returns could be affected by many other external factors. While the project is likely to have immediate benefits to focal species, only long-term monitoring can show whether these benefits will persist. There is no discussion in the narrative about other activities (upstream or downstream) in the basin that might compromise benefits to focal species. It is not clear from the narrative whether the new upstream location for the diversion dam is important habitat for focal species and how this habitat will be affected. There will be some attempts (biologists with nets) to rescue fish stranded by construction of the new dam. A discussion of potential adverse affects of dam replacement on habitat/populations of native biota would have been useful. The project will produce progress and annual reports. Plans for publication and or release and long-term storage of data, photographs, and meta-data resulting from pre- and post-Monitoring and evaluation were not described.