FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29002

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

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.

Comment:

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:

Comment:

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:

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:

Comment: