Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Methow Valley Irrigation District Alternatives Evaluation Presented by Bob Montgomery, P.E. and David Rice, P.E. January 31, 2013.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Methow Valley Irrigation District Alternatives Evaluation Presented by Bob Montgomery, P.E. and David Rice, P.E. January 31, 2013."— Presentation transcript:

1 Methow Valley Irrigation District Alternatives Evaluation Presented by Bob Montgomery, P.E. and David Rice, P.E. January 31, 2013

2 Alternatives Evaluation Report (AER) Scope Coordination meetings –Meetings with project team –MVID board of directors and shareholders Hydrologic feasibility analysis –Groundwater well testing –Evaluation of individual well option Development of AER –Evaluation of 4 alternatives –Hydraulic analyses, cost analyses, concept drawings –Draft and final reports

3 Groundwater Investigation Potential well sites identified Test well drilling plan developed –Description and specifications for drilling work Test well drilling – 8 inch exploration wells –MVID beaver pond property –Jumars property –Eileen property

4 Summary of Drilling at MVID Beaver Pond Property Well drilled to 90 ft below ground surface (bgs) Static water level was 10 ft bgs Encountered bedrock at 80 ft bgs We are not recommending this site be used for production wells

5 Summary of Drilling at Jumars Property Well drilled to 180 ft bgs Static water level was 69 ft bgs Good formations of sand and gravel were found Pump test not performed because of freezing weather

6

7

8 Summary of Drilling at Eileen Property Well drilled to 156 ft bgs Static water level was 8 ft bgs Good formations of sand and gravel were found Higher withdrawals likely available at this site Pump test not yet performed

9

10 Summary of Alternatives Alternative 1 –West canal replaced with pressurized pipe system –Supplied by pump station on Methow River Alternative 2 –West canal replaced with pressurized pipe system –Supplied by wells in connection with Methow River Alternative 3 –West canal replaced with two pressurized pipe systems –Supplied by wells in connection with Methow River

11 Summary of Alternatives (Cont.) Alternative 4 –Convert to individual well systems, where possible –Reduced West system – Upper West Side users –Pressure pipe system –Supplied by well (or river pump station) –Users likely still within a reduced MVID –Reduced East system – Lateral E1 replacement –Pressure pipe system –Supplied by well –System operated as part of a reduced MVID, or through agreement with Town of Twisp

12 Alternative 1

13 Alternative 1 – Detailed Summary Supply –Methow River pump station –2.4 cfs (125 HP) pumping to users upstream –8.6 cfs (200 HP) pumping to users downstream Pressurized PVC pipe system –Main line – approx. 47,800 feet, 8 to 18 diam. –Laterals – approx. 29,600 feet, 3 to 8 diam. Storage (optional) –132,000 gallons (upstream of pump station) –476,000 gallons (downstream of pump station)

14 Alternative 1 – Implementation Costs Probable construction cost –$6 to $7 million (2013 dollars) Additional implementation costs –Land acquisition, engineering, permitting, administrative

15 Alternative 1 – Life Cycle Costs Probable annual life cycle costs –Power:$30K to $35K (2013 dollars) –O&M:$140K to $160K (2013 dollars) –Replacement fund:$55K to $65K (2013 dollars) –Probable annual assessment –$155 to $165 per acre for power + O&M –$50 to $60 per acre for replacement fund –Analysis assumes –Okanogan PUD irrigation rate schedule –3% annual inflation and 3% annual interest

16 Alternative 2

17 Alternative 2 – Detailed Summary Groundwater well supply –Total 11.0 cfs supply –Multiple large production wells Booster pump station –2.4 cfs (75 HP) pump station to users upstream of Roach Spill

18 Alternative 2 – Detailed Summary (Cont.) Pressurized PVC pipe system –Main line – approx. 47,800 feet, 8 to 18 diam. –Laterals – approx. 29,700 feet, 3 to 8 diam. Storage (optional) –132,000 gallons (upstream of pump station) –476,000 gallons (downstream of pump station)

19 Alternative 2 – Implementation Costs Probable construction cost –$6.5 to $7.5 million (2013 dollars) Additional implementation costs –Land acquisition, permitting, administrative

20 Alternative 2 – Life Cycle Costs Probable annual life cycle costs –Power:$40K to $45K (2013 dollars) –O&M:$145K to $165K (2013 dollars) –Replacement fund:$60K to $70K (2013 dollars) –Probable annual assessment –$160 to $170 per acre for power + O&M –$50 to $60 per acre for replacement fund –Analysis assumes –Okanogan PUD irrigation rate schedule –3% annual inflation and 3% annual interest

21 Alternative 3

22 Alternative 3 – Detailed Summary Groundwater well supply –Upper middle system - total 5.1 cfs supply –Lower system - total 5.9 cfs supply –Multiple large production wells Booster pump station –2.4 cfs (75 HP) pump station in upper/middle system to users upstream of Roach spill

23 Alternative 3 – Detailed Summary (Cont.) Pressurized PVC pipe system –Main line – approx. 41,100 feet, 8 to 15 diam. –Laterals – approx. 29,700 feet, 3 to 8 diam. Storage (optional) –Upper/middle system –132,000 gallons (upstream of pump station) –158,000 gallons (downstream of pump station) –Lower system –317,000 gallons

24 Alternative 3 – Implementation Costs Probable construction cost –$5.5 to $6.5 million (2013 dollars) Additional implementation costs –Land acquisition, permitting, administrative

25 Alternative 3 – Life Cycle Costs Probable life cycle costs –Power:$40K to $45K (2013 dollars) –O&M:$145K to $165K (2013 dollars) –Replacement fund:$60K to $70K (2013 dollars) –Probable assessment –$165 to $175 per acre for power + O&M –$50 to $60 per acre for replacement fund –Analysis assumes –Okanogan PUD irrigation rate schedule –3% annual inflation and 3% annual interest

26 Alternative 4

27 Alternative 4 – Detailed Summary Combination of individual well systems and pressurized pipe system where wells are not feasible Individual well systems –For parcels outside town of twisp –Groundwater likely available in valley and margins in unconsolidated sediment formation –Recommend drilling deeper and using screens for higher capacity wells

28 Alternative 4 – Detailed Summary Reduced Upper West system –Groundwater well supply – 2.5 cfs –Pressurized PVC pipe system –Approx. 21,100 feet, 3 to 12 diam. –Storage (optional) –132,000 gallons

29 Alternative 4 – Detailed Summary (Cont.) Reduced Upper East System –Groundwater well supply – 2.5 cfs –Pressurized PVC pipe system –Approx. 6,100 feet, 4 to 10 diam. –No storage –Operation –Part of reduced MVID, or –Served through agreement with Town of Twisp with separate irrigation meter

30 Alternative 4 – Implementation Costs Probable construction cost for reduced MVID system (Upper West and Upper East systems) –$2.1 to $2.6 million total (2013 dollars) –$1.5 to $1.8 million for upper west (2013 dollars) –$600K to $800K for upper east (2013 dollars) Additional implementation costs –Land acquisition, permitting, administrative

31 Alternative 4 – Life Cycle Costs Probable life cycle costs for reduced MVID (upper west and upper east systems) –Power:$12K to $16K (2013 dollars) –O&M:$20K to $30K (2013 dollars) –Replacement fund:$27K to $32K (2013 dollars) –Probable assessment –$180 to $190 per acre for power + O&M –$120 to $130 per acre for replacement fund –Analysis assumes –Okanogan PUD irrigation rate schedule –3% annual inflation and 3% annual interest

32 Comparison of Alternatives FactorAlternative 1Alternative 2Alternative 3Alternative 4 Capital Cost (funded by Ecology) $6-7 million$ million$ million$ million Annual Costs (power, O&M, replacement) $ ,000$ ,000 $99-118,000 Estimated Annual Assessment (Power + O&M per acre) $155-$165$ $165-$175$180-$190 Additional Assessment for Replacement Fund $50-60$50-$60 $120-$130 Water SupplyRiver Pump Station Groundwater Wells Other FeaturesPressurized pipe Two Zones Pressurized pipe Two Zones Pressurized pipe Two Systems, Two Zones in Upper System Individual Well Systems, MVID Reduced to Upper West and Upper East Systems

33 Next Steps Completion of AER MVID selection of preferred alternative Selection criteria –Cost (construction cost, land acquisition, O&M, replacement, impact to shareholder assessment) –Water supply (impact to groundwater, surface water, and continuity with methow river) –Property impacts –Social and political feasibility –Ease of permitting –Constructability, ease of operation

34 Questions and Comments To be collected at tables for each alternative For more information: –See –Talk with MVID Directors and Staff –Visit the Trout Unlimited office in Twisp (115 S. Glover St.) – questions and comments to:


Download ppt "Methow Valley Irrigation District Alternatives Evaluation Presented by Bob Montgomery, P.E. and David Rice, P.E. January 31, 2013."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google