Planned Alternative Analysis South Meadow Creek Water Efficiency Project

480 East Park Suite 200 Butte, MT 59701 April 2010

Madison Conservation District South Meadow Creek Water Efficiency Project Planned Alternative Analysis

Submitted to: Madison Conservation District PO Box 1178 Ennis, MT 59729

Prepared by: Water & Environmental Technologies, PC 480 East Park, Suite 200 Butte, Montana 59701

April 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0  PROJECT INDENTIFICATION 4 
4  4 

1.1  Project Location 1.2  Project Goal

2.0 

CURRENT IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE


5  6  7  8  8  9  9  10 

2.1  Initial Site Survey 2.2  Detailed Site Evaluation 2.2.1  Goggins/Gibbs Site 2.2.2  Goggins Site 2.2.3  Lower Nelsen Site 2.2.4  Ramshorn Site 2.2.5  Gibbs Site 2.2.6  Detailed Evaluation Summary

3.0 

RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES

12 
13  13  13  13 

3.1  Alternative 1 – In-Stream Diversion 3.2  Alternative 2 – Rock Weirs with Grazing Management 3.3  Alternative 3 – Rock Weirs and Pivot with Grazing Management 3.4     Alternative 4 – Ground Water Well with Pivot and Grazing Management

4.0 

ALTERNATIVE COST AND BENEFITS

14 
14  15  16  17 

4.1  Alternative 2 Cost Estimate 4.2  Alternative 3 Cost Estimate 4.3  Alternative 4 Cost Estimate 4.4  Alternative Cost Analysis Summary

5.0 

CERTIFICATION/REVIEW

18 

ii

List of Figures Figure 1. Site Location - USGS Topographic Map Figure 2. Site Location – Aerial Photo Figure 3. Surveyed Sites Figure 4. Goggins/Gibbs Aerial Photo Figure 5. Goggins/Gibbs Site Sketch Figure 6. Goggins Aerial Photo Figure 7. Goggins Site Sketch Figure 8. Lower Nelsen Aerial Photo Figure 9. Lower Nelsen Site Sketch Figure 10. Ramshorn Aerial Photo Figure 11. Ramshorn Site Sketch Figure 12. Gibbs Aerial Photo Figure 13. Gibbs Site Sketch Figure 14. Typical In-Stream Diversion Figure 15. Typical Rock Weir Diversion Figure 16. Typical Sluice Gate Figure 17. Typical Trapezoidal Flume List of Appendices Appendix A. Site Survey Forms Appendix B. Riparian Assessment Forms

iii

1.0 PROJECT INDENTIFICATION The South Meadow Creek Water Efficiency project is project created by the Madison Conservation District (MCD) to evaluate aging and failing irrigation infrastructure on South Meadow Creek and analyze alternative options to improve water delivery efficiency to irrigators and improve riparian habitat. 1.1 Project Location South Meadow Creek is a tributary of the Madison River that flows out of South Meadow Lake in the Tobacco Root mountains and flows approximately 11 miles east into Ennis Lake near McAlister, MT (See Figure 1). Flow from South Meadow Lake is controlled by an irrigation dam built in 1902. The dam was reconstructed in 1978 to increase storage capacity. The upper five miles of South Meadow flows through a steeply graded forested region and exhibits B type channel characteristics. The lower six miles of South Meadow Creek flow through lower gradient reaches dominated by agricultural and ranching use and consists of a C type channel. The lower reach is dominated by private land and public access is very limited. The South Meadow Creek 50-year peak flow was estimated by SCS in 1976 to be 316 cfs. Flow measurements collected by various agencies range from 1-60 cfs. Minimum flow to support fish has been estimated to be 8.5 cfs; however, the lower reach is chronically dewatered and cannot support fish. 1.2 Project Goal Many diversions and head gates along South Meadow Creek are ineffective due to age and poor condition, which leads to difficulty for irrigators to divert their allotted water right. As a result, irrigators are often forced to alter streambed elevations and/or banks which often lead to sediment agradation, avulsion, bed scour, bank erosion, fish blockage, and long term impacts of water quality and habitat. The South Meadow Creek Water Efficiency project is a planning, design, and construction project designed to:     Identify and prioritize irrigation infrastructure sites that may be impacting the water quality and habitat of South Meadow Creek Analyze cost effective modifications or replacement structures that will improve irrigation efficiency and reduce impacts to South Meadow Creek. Design and construct recommended replacement irrigation infrastructure Modify irrigation and land management practices as required to conserve surface water and improve riparian habitat

The long-term goal of South Meadow Creek Water Efficiency project is to improve in-stream flows and habitat by reducing surface water consumption caused by inefficient irrigation infrastructure and management.

4

2.0 CURRENT IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE The MCD identified ten diversion sites that local landowners were interested in modifying or replacing by surveying and interviewing landowners with water rights to South Meadow Creek. The ten sites are shown in Figure 3. 2.1 Initial Site Survey On March 22, 2010, a resource advisory team consisting of personnel from the MCD, Water and Environmental Technologies (WET), Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC), and Montana Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) evaluated the ten diversion sites indentified by the MCD. Table 2.1 summarizes the chosen sites and associated structures. Table 2.1 Initial Survey Sites
Site  Description  Gibbs  Goggins/Gibbs  Goggins  Oliver  Lower Nelsen  Middle Nelsen  Upper Nelsen  Hughes  Ramshorn  Elk Hills  Water Right  Owner  Gibbs  Goggins/Gibbs  Goggins  Oliver  Nelsen  Nelsen  Nelsen  Hughes  Ramshorn LLC  Elk Hills  Diversion  Manager  Gibbs  Endecott/Gibbs  Endecott  Oliver  Endecott  Endecott  Endecott  Hughes  Doud  Barlow  Diversion  Construction  wood ties  w/planks  metal w/planks  Head Gate  Construction  none  none  Flow  Measurement  Device  Montana flume  Montana &  Parshall flume  Montana flume  No of  Ditches  1  2  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  Max Flow  (cfs)  4.13  8.64  4.51  2.25  1.00  1.00  1.00  5.63  3.51  1.00 

wood w/planks  none  concrete  concrete  Montana flume  w/planks  w/screw gate  steel posts  wood  Montana flume  w/planks  steel posts  CMP w/  Montana flume  w/planks  sliding gate  steel posts  CMP w/  Montana flume  w/planks  sliding gate  concrete  wood planks  metal weir  w/wood gate  concrete  rip rap  Montana flume  w/wood gate  CMP w/screw  NA  NA  gate 

The resource advisory team evaluated and prioritized each site for possible modification or replacement based on five categories: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Current Condition and Effectiveness Environmental Benefits Technical Feasibility Economic Feasibility Landowner Interest

Each category was rated from 0 to 3 based on upon field observations, land owner interviews, and 5

professional judgment. Scores for each site were added and ranked according to:    High Priority – 10 to 15 Medium Priority – 5 to 9 Low Priority – 0 to 4

Table 2.2 summarizes the survey scores. The survey field forms are in Appendix A. Table 2.2 Resource Advisory Team Survey Results
Site Score  Evaluators  JT  WK  SHK  ACS  JB  Unknown –  no name  Total Score  Goggins/Gibbs  Goggins  15  12  13  14  14  12  80  13  13  11  10  13  10  70  Lower  Ramshorn Gibbs Oliver Nelsen  12  11  11  12  12  10  58  11  10  9  9  8  9  56  9  6  10  3  9  9  46  5  7  8  4  8  8  40  Upper  Nelsen  5  7  7  7  6  5  37  Hughes  4  7  5  4  7  3  30  Elk Hills  2  5  7  2  6  8  30  Middle  Nelsen  4  5  8  5  4  3  29 

Once the sites were ranked, the resource advisory team decided to further evaluate the top five ranked sites, which include the Goggins/Gibbs, Goggins, Lower Nelsen, Ramshorn, and Gibbs sites. 2.2 Detailed Site Evaluation The detailed site evaluation included surveying the locations of the structures such as the diversions, head gates, and flumes. In addition, the primary ditch locations were surveyed as well. For the purpose of this PAA, the primary ditch is defined as the main ditch stemming from the stream diversion to the first branch or leg of another ditch that is supplied by the main ditch. The condition and of each structure was qualitatively evaluated to determine the effectiveness and efficiency. Each structure was evaluated based on the following criteria:  Excellent – structure is intact and sound, no signs of leakage or heaving present. Requires minimal annual maintenance. Operates easily and provides sufficient capacity for the full range of irrigation flows. Most structures less than five years old would fall into this criterion. Good – structure is intact and sound. Some sign of leakage is present. No sign of heaving present. Regular monthly maintenance is required to prevent leakage. 6

Operates easily and provides sufficient capacity for the full range of irrigation flows.  Fair – structure is intact, however, structural issues exist that may affect operation and accuracy. Frequent maintenance is required to prevent leakage. Structure heaves every winter and needs to be reset every spring prior to irrigation season. Operates with frequent maintenance and provides sufficient capacity for normal flows but not maximum flows. Poor – structure is severely impaired. Structural issues such as heaved foundation, bowed walls, and excessive leakage exist that cannot be repaired. Complete structure failure may be imminent. Diversion manager may alter the stream bed elevation or banks in order to divert and control irrigation flows at times or the whole irrigation season.

A riparian assessment was completed at each site in order to evaluate the riparian habitat. The riparian assessment was completed as per methods outlined in the Montana NRCS document Riparian Assessment (September 2004). The riparian assessment evaluates a combination of geomorphic conditions and vegetation to assess the sustainability and function of the riparian corridor and will help identify possible anthropogenic impacts and land management issues that may be modified to increase the riparian function. The riparian assessment is a quantitative assessment that compares potential to actual riparian sustainability and function by assessing and relating the comparison to a percentage. The site is determined to be sustainable and functional based on the following percentages:    Sustainable = 80 – 100% At Risk = 50 – 80% Not Sustainable = Less than 50%

The Montana NRCS Riparian Assessment (September 2004) document and field survey forms are in Appendix B. 2.2.1 Goggins/Gibbs Site The Goggins/Gibbs diversion is managed by Mrs. Endecott and Mr. Gibbs. The site consists of a metal diversion with vertical planks and two ditches without head gates. Figures 4 and 5 show the diversion, flumes, and primary ditch locations. Interviews with Mrs. Endecott and Mr. Gibbs indicate it is very difficult to divert sufficient flows and the ditches fill with sediment during the irrigation season. They also indicated it is difficult to control flow down the ditches because no head gates exist. The diversion is in poor condition and canted due to the scour and avulsion of material from the downstream side. Upstream of the diversion is an eroding bank and an aggrading stream bed. The north ditch is used by Mrs. Endecott to flood irrigate approximately 110 acres with a possible maximum flow of 4.51cfs. The flume is a metal Parshall flume located approximately 237 ft down ditch of the diversion. The flume is in poor condition because it is bowed, shows signs of 7

excessive leakage, and there is evidence the flume operates under submerged conditions, which reduces the accuracy of the flume. The south ditch is used by Mrs. Endecott and Mr. Gibbs to flood irrigate approximately 50 acres with a possible maximum flow of 8.64 cfs. The flume is a Montana flume constructed of treated wood and tin and is in good condition. The riparian assessment indicates the stream channel is slightly down cutting with some lateral erosion but has access to the floodplain. The stream channel type is C4. Flow alteration by the diversion has impacted the sediment load and transport capabilities downstream of the diversion. Grazing practices have reduced the stable riparian vegetation to two species and has eliminated the regeneration of large woody species. Hoof shear is present along the banks. The total score for the Goggins/Gibbs site is 57% which indicates the riparian habitat is at risk. The diversion mostly likely acts as a fish barrier during operation in the irrigation season. The absence of head gates and fish screens creates potential for fish loss down the irrigation ditches. 2.2.2 Goggins Site The Goggins site is operated by Mrs. Endecott. The diversion consists of a wood frame structure with vertical planks as checks. The diversion is in poor condition. Mrs. Endecott indicates sufficient diversion is not possible without altering the stream bed elevation with large cobbles. One ditch exists without a head gate and is used to flood irrigate approximately 30 acres with a possible maximum flow of 4.51 cfs. An old flume at the head of the ditch is inoperable and is no longer used. A newer flume approximately 22 ft down ditch is used to measure flow. The new flume is a Montana flume constructed of treated wood and tin and is in good condition. The riparian assessment indicates the stream channel has some lateral erosion and over widened areas but has access to the floodplain. The stream channel type is C4. Grazing practices have reduced the stable riparian vegetation to two species and has eliminated the regeneration of large woody species. The total score for the Goggins site is 63% which indicates the riparian habitat is at risk. The diversion mostly likely acts as a fish barrier during operation in the irrigation season. The absence of head gates and fish screens creates potential for fish loss down the irrigation ditches. 2.2.3 Lower Nelsen Site The Lower Nelsen diversion is operated by Mr. Endecott. The diversion is constructed of wood beam and steel anchors with vertical planks for checks. There is evidence of lateral scour around the edges of the diversion and aggradation upstream of the diversion. The diversion is in poor condition. The primary ditch flows through the riparian corridor of South Meadow Creek that is dominated by willows and continues for approximately 2,936 ft. Willow bunches in the riparian corridor have created flow blockages in the ditch and areas with flow loss, avulsion, and aggradation. 8

The head gate is located approximately 753 ft down ditch from the diversion and the flume is another 44 ft down ditch. Both the flume and head gate are constructed of wood and are in poor condition. The combination of flow blockages in the willows, long distances between diversion and head gate, and poor infrastructure results in an irrigation system that is difficult to control. The ditch flood irrigates approximately 85 acres with a possible maximum flow of 1.00 cfs. The riparian assessment indicates the stream channel has some eroding banks but the channel is stable and has access to the floodplain. The stream channel type is C4. Grazing practices have reduced the stable riparian vegetation to three species and has eliminated the regeneration of large woody species. Hoof shear is present. The Lower Nelsen rating is 59%, which indicates the riparian habitat is at risk. The diversion mostly likely acts as a fish barrier during operation in the irrigation season. The absence of fish screens creates potential for fish loss down the irrigation ditches. 2.2.4 Ramshorn Site The Ramshorn diversion is managed by Mr. Doud. The diversion is constructed of in-stream rip rap and is in poor condition. The rip rap is undersized for large flood events, which creates the potential for blow outs and rip rap washing downstream. Mr. Doud has indicated a portion of the rip rap is replaced every year. The head gate is constructed of concrete and wood and is in good condition. Mr. Doud has indicated the gate works well and he can control the flow easily. The primary ditch is used to flood irrigate approximately 50 acres with a maximum flow of 3.51 cfs. The flume is a Montana flume constructed of wood and tin and is in good condition. The flume is located approximately 156 ft down ditch from the diversion. The riparian assessment indicates the channel at the Ramshorn site is a B4 type channel, is stable, and has good vegetative diversity. No evidence of recent grazing exists. The rating for the Ramshorn site is 83% which indicates the site is sustainable. The diversion is not a fish barrier; however, the absence of a fish screen on the head gate creates potential for fish loss down the irrigation ditch. 2.2.5 Gibbs Site The Gibbs diversion is a wood structure constructed of 6x6 ties, uses vertical planks for checks and is in fair condition. There is evidence of downstream scour and upstream aggradation. The flume is a Montana Flume constructed of wood and sealed with a poly tarp. The flume is in fair condition. The flume is currently canted due to winter heaving and Mr. Gibbs indicated the flume is leveled and reset every year. The primary ditch flows approximately 583 ft with a maximum flow of 4.13 cfs. Mr. Gibbs did 9

not indicate how many acres the ditch serves. The riparian assessment indicates the stream channel has been over widened in areas due to hoof shear and lateral erosion is evident. Some down cutting was observed. The stream channel type is C4. Stream flow has been altered due to the aggradation upstream and scour downstream of the diversion. Heavy grazing impacts have eliminated most vegetation with deep binding root mass and there is no regeneration of large wood species. The overall score for the Gibbs site is 34% which indicates the riparian habitat is not sustainable. The diversion mostly likely acts as a fish barrier during operation in the irrigation season. The absence of head gates and fish screens creates potential for fish loss down the irrigation ditches. 2.2.6 Detailed Evaluation Summary The detailed irrigation infrastructure evaluation illustrates each site requires replacement of one or all structures in order to improve the irrigation efficiency. Table 2.3 summarizes the detailed evaluation results. Table 2.3 Irrigation Infrastructure Evaluation Results
Structure  Diversion  Head Gate  Flume  Goggins/Gibbs  Poor  Not installed  North Ditch ‐  Poor  South Ditch ‐ Good  North Ditch –  110  South Ditch ‐ 50  North Ditch –  4.51  South Ditch –  8.64  yes  NA  Goggins Poor Not installed Good  Infrastructure Condition Lower Nelsen Ramshorn  Poor Poor  Poor Good  Poor  Good  Gibbs Fair Not Installed Fair 

Acres Served 

30 

85 

50 

NA 

Maximum Ditch  Flow (cfs)  Fish Barrier  during operation  Fish Screen on  Head Gate 
NA – Not Applicable

4.51 

1.00 

3.51 

4.13 

Yes  NA 

Yes  No 

No  No 

Yes  NA 

The evaluation also revealed all sites except the Ramshorn diversion created fish barriers and every ditch had the potential for fish loss because no fish screens are installed.

10

The riparian assessment revealed every site except the Ramshorn diversion has been impacted by grazing practices and the riparian habitat is at risk or not sustainable. Table 2.4 summarizes the riparian assessment scores. Table 2.4 Riparian Assessment of Irrigation Sites
Assessment  Category  Stream Incisement  Lateral Cutting  Stream Balance  Deep, Binding  Rootmass  Riparian  Vegetative Cover  Noxious Weeds  Undesirable Plants  Woody Species  Establishment  Browse Utilization  Riparian  Area/Floodplain  Characteristics  Best  Possible  Score  8  8  6  6  6  3  3  8  8  8  Total Score  Rating 
NA – Not Applicable

Goggins/Gibbs  6  5  4  2  4  2  2  0  0  4  29/51 = 57% At Risk 

Goggins  6 5 4 2  4  3 2 2  1 6  35/56 = 63% At Risk 

Site Lower  Nelsen  6 3 4 4  4  2 2 4  0 4  33/56 = 59% At Risk 

Ramshorn  6  8  6  NA  NA  2  2  NA  NA  6  30/36 = 83%  Sustainable 

Gibbs  6 3 4 0  0  2 2 0  0 2  19/56 = 34% Not  Sustainable 

11

3.0 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES In order to increase irrigation efficiency, it is recommended new, modern structures replace the aging structures that are in poor condition. The in-stream diversions can be replaced with new concrete diversions with steel gates. Figure 14 shows a typical concrete in-stream diversion. The diversion would include a flood bypass to safely pass the 50-year event peak flows without damaging the structure or surrounding stream bank. It should be designed to pass bank full flows without constriction to prevent upstream aggradation and lateral scour. The stream elevation change should be minimized to prevent downstream scour and avulsion. The advantage of in-stream diversions is that they provide good flow control with low maintenance; however, it may not provide fish passage while in operation. The Goggins/Gibbs, Goggins, Lower Nelsen, and Gibbs sites would benefit from construction of new in-stream diversions. Rock-weir diversions are diversions made of rip rap and are designed to allow fish passage even at low flows. A typical rock-weir diversion is shown in Figure 15. The number of rock-weirs is governed by the elevation change required to divert sufficient water to the ditch. The disadvantage of the rock weir is higher design cost due to complex flow modeling required, and the inability to adjust diversion flows. If fish passage is a priority, then the Goggins/Gibbs, Goggins, Lower Nelsen, and Gibbs sites would benefit from construction of new rock weir diversions. Sluice gates should be placed at the head of each ditch to provide flow control into each ditch. A typical sluice gate is shown in Figure 16. Pre-fabricated, light duty sluice gates are designed for small irrigation ditches. Sluice gates are cost effective structures that provide good flow control and low maintenance. Most light duty sluice gates are installed in a concrete foundation and coupled with HDPE, CMP, or RCP pipe. The sluice gates may be coupled with a rotating drum fish screen if the concrete foundation is modified to hold the drum. Sluice gates should be installed at the Goggins/Gibbs, Goggins, Lower Nelsen, and Gibbs sites. If fish loss into the ditches is a concern, then all new sluice gates and the existing head gate at the Ramshorn site should be constructed with rotating drum fish screens. The Montana and Parshall flumes that need to be replaced should be replaced with Trapezoidal flumes. Figure 17 shows a typical Trapezoidal flume. Trapezoidal flumes were designed for small irrigation ditches and operate with a higher submergence rate than the Montana or Parshall flumes, which allows for easier installation and a wider range of flows. Pre-fabricated Trapezoidal flumes are cost effective and much easier to install than traditional methods of building flumes in place with concrete or wood. All flumes should be replaced even if the existing flumes are in good condition because the new Trapezoidal flumes will provide more accurate measurements. Replacing irrigation structures alone will not improve riparian habitat. The riparian habitat will only improve if land management practices are modified. Methods such as riparian buffers and grazing rest/rotation will increase riparian health and improve the resource of South Meadow Creek. 12

3.1 Alternative 1 – In-Stream Diversion The first alternative discussed will be full replacement of the diversions with a new in-stream diversion along with replacement of the flumes and installation of new sluice gates. Replacing the aging and failing structures will increase efficiency and greatly reduce the operation and maintenance costs for the diversion manager. However, structure replacement alone will not benefit the resource of South Meadow Creek because fish passage and riparian habitat will not be addressed. 3.2 Alternative 2 – Rock Weirs with Grazing Management The second alternative would be diversion replacement with rock weirs, installation of new flumes, and installation of sluice gates with rotary drum fish screens. The rock weirs would provide fish passage and the screens would prevent fish loss in the ditches. Replacement with rock weirs in conjunction with new grazing management practices that would establish a protected riparian buffer would enhance and benefit South Meadow Creek and the surrounding riparian corridor. 3.3 Alternative 3 – Rock Weirs and Pivot with Grazing Management The third alternative would be similar to alternative 2 except the flood irrigation would be replaced with a pivot. The primary ditch would convey water to a small pond or pump inlet for the pivot and the fields would be irrigated via the pivot rather than the flooding method. Pivots are more efficient, thus less water would be diverted from South Meadow Creek. Diversion managers would have to agree to using water only as required and not diverting the full water right as they do when flood irrigating. 3.4 Alternative 4 – Ground Water Well with Pivot and Grazing Management Alternative 4 includes removing all irrigation structures, sealing and abandoning the ditch(s), restoring the stream channel and bank, and replacing the diversion with a ground water well and pivot. The well and pivot system would be more efficient than the ditch inlet and pivot system. Surface water rights from South Meadow Creek would be transferred to ground water rights. The well and pivot structure in conjunction with new grazing management practices, that would establish a protected riparian buffer, would enhance and benefit South Meadow Creek and the surrounding riparian corridor. However, review of local well logs and conversations with local drillers indicate the ground water resource may not be sufficient to support large irrigation wells.

13

4.0 ALTERNATIVE COST AND BENEFITS Costs for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 were evaluated in order to compare the cost benefits. Cost for Alternative 1 was not evaluated because it did not provide benefit for the resource. All costs were based on replacing structures at one site. Replacement includes one diversion, flume, and installing a new sluice gate with a rotating drum fish screen. Individual site construction cost may vary; however, the same assumptions were made for each alternative in order to correctly compare costs. 4.1 Alternative 2 Cost Estimate Cost for Alternative 2 includes labor and materials to construct three rock weirs, one new sluice gate with a fish screen, and one flume. Table 4.1 summarizes the alternative 2 costs. Total cost for alternative 2 is estimated to be $49,630. Table 4.1 Alternative 2 Cost Estimate
Task/Material  Detailed Topographic Survey  Engineer ‐ Permitting/Design  Drafting ‐ Permitting /Design  Administrative ‐ Permitting/Design  Engineer ‐ Construction Oversight  Mob/Demob ‐ Excavator  Surveyor ‐ staking lines  Excavator ‐ demo old diversion and prep new  site  Excavator ‐ rock weir construction  Labor ‐ construction support‐ 2 laborers  Oversized rip rap  Excavator ‐ flume and sluice gate construction  Sluice gate ‐ 24" steel frame and gate  Fish screen ‐ rotating drum (1‐4 cfs)  Crushed gravel  Stabilization Geotextile  Misc hardware  Excavator ‐ final grading and recontour stream  channel and banks  Revegetate ‐ native seed mix  Weed spraying  Unit Cost  $2,200.00  /lump  $80.00  /hr  $65.00  /hr  $40.00  /hr  $80.00  /hr  $600.00  /trip  $900.00  /day  $125.00  /hour  $125.00  /hour  $35.00  /hour  $70.00  /cyd  $125.00  /hour  $1,383.00  /each  $16,000.00  /each  $35.00  /cyd  $3.48  /syd  $400.00  /each  $125.00  /hour  $150.00  /each  $150.00  /each  Units  1  lump  40  hours  10  hours  4  hours  40  hours  1  round trip  1  days  6  hours  20  hours  80  hours  14  cyds  4  hours  1  lump  1  lump  4  cyds  4  syds  1  lump  12  hours  1  lump  1  lump  Cost  Insurance, bonds, permits (15%)   Contingency (15%)  Total Cost  Cost  $2,200 $3,200 $650 $160 $3,200 $600 $900 $750 $2,500 $2,800 $980 $500 $1,383 $16,000 $140 $14 $400 $1,500 $150 $150 $38,177 $5,726.54 $5,726.54 $49,630

14

4.2 Alternative 3 Cost Estimate The Alternative 3 includes cost to construct rock weirs, a new flume, a sluice gate with a fish screen, and a pivot with a pond inlet that is supplied by the existing ditch. The total cost estimate is $235,807. Table 4.2 Alternative 3 Cost Estimate
Task/Material  Detailed Topographic Survey  Engineer ‐ Permitting/Design  Drafting ‐ Permitting /Design  Adminstrative ‐ Permitting/Design  Engineer ‐ Construction Oversight  Mob/Demob ‐ Excavator  Surveyor ‐ staking lines  Excavator ‐ demo old diversion and prep  new site  Excavator ‐ rock weir construction  Labor ‐ construction support‐ 2 laborers  Oversized rip rap  Excavator ‐ flume and sluice gate  construction  Sluice gate ‐ 24" steel frame and gate  Fish screen ‐ rotating drum (1‐4 cfs)  Crushed gravel  Stabilization Geotextile  Misc hardware  Excavator ‐ final grading and recontour  stream channel and banks  Revegetate ‐ native seed mix  Weed spraying  Excavator ‐ building pivot pump inlet  and pond  Pump and inlet hardware  Extending power to pump and pivot  Pivot hardware and installation  Unit Cost  $2,200.00  /lump  $80.00  /hr  $65.00  /hr  $40.00  /hr  $80.00  /hr  $600.00  /trip  $900.00  /day  $125.00  /hour  $125.00  /hour  $35.00  /hour  $70.00  /cyd  $125.00  /hour  $1,383.00  /each  $16,000.00  /each  $35.00  /cyd  $3.48  /syd  $400.00  /each  $125.00  /hour  $150.00  /each  $150.00  /each  $125.00  /hour  $11,113.00  /lump  $25.00  /ft  $85,000.00  /lump  Units  1  lump  80  hours  30  hours  4  hours  60  hours  1  round trip  1  days  6  hours  20  hours  100  hours  14  cyds  4  hours  1  lump  1  lump  4  cyds  4  syds  1  lump  12  hours  1  lump  1  lump  12  hours  1  lump  1,500  feet  1  lump  Cost  Insurance, bonds, permits (15%)   Contingency (15%)  Total Cost  Cost  $3,500 $6,400 $1,950 $160 $4,800 $600 $900 $750 $2,500 $3,500 $980 $500 $1,383 $16,000 $140 $14 $400 $1,500 $150 $150 $1,500 $11,113 $37,500 $85,000 $181,390 $27,208.49 $27,208.49 $235,807

15

4.3 Alternative 4 Cost Estimate The Alternative 4 cost estimate includes labor and materials to remove the irrigation structures, install a ground water well and new pivot system, and restore the stream and bank at the diversion site. The total cost estimate is $312,637. Table 4.3 Alternative 4 Cost Estimate
Task/Material  Detailed Topographic Survey  Engineer ‐ Permitting/Design  Drafting ‐ Permitting /Design  Adminstrative ‐ Permitting/Design  Engineer ‐ Construction Oversight  Mob/Demob ‐ Excavator  Surveyor ‐ staking lines  Excavator ‐ demo old diversion, flume,  and headgate  Labor ‐ construction support‐ 2 laborers  Excavator ‐ final grading and recontour  stream channel and banks  Revegetate ‐ native seed mix  Weed spraying  Drilling ‐ Dual Rotary ‐ 12" Casing  16" Stainless screen, 80‐slot  Air Burst Development  72‐hour drawdown test  Pump system ‐ 1,200 gpm LST  Extending power to pump and pivot  Pivot hardware and installation  Unit Cost  $2,200.00  /lump  $80.00  /hr  $65.00  /hr  $40.00  /hr  $80.00  /hr  $600.00  /trip  $900.00  /day  $125.00  /hour  $35.00  /hour  $125.00  /hour  $150.00  /each  $150.00  /each  $190.00  /foot  $320.00  /foot  $6,600.00  /lump  $6,120.00  /lump  $24,000.00  /lump  $25.00  /ft  $85,000.00  /lump  Units  1  lump  120  hours  60  hours  8  hours  120  hours  1  round trip  1  days  2  hours  80  hours  20  hours  1  lump  1  lump  180  feet  40  feet  1  lump  1  lump  1  lump  1,500  feet  1  lump  Cost  Insurance, bonds, permits (15%)   Contingency (15%)  Total Cost  Cost  $3,500 $9,600 $3,900 $320 $9,600 $600 $900 $250 $2,800 $2,500 $150 $150 $34,200 $12,800 $6,600 $6,120 $24,000 $37,500 $85,000 $240,490 $36,073.50 $36,073.50 $312,637

16

4.4 Alternative Cost Analysis Summary The alternative cost estimates show most the expensive alternative is Alternative 4 at $312,637. Alternative 4 provides the most benefit to South Meadow Creek; however, the uncertainty of the ground water resource and high cost offset the advantage of installing a well and pivot; as result, Alternative 4 is not a feasible option. Alternative 3 may reduce the amount of water diverted from South Meadow creek; however, the high cost of the pivot compared to Alternative 2 does not compensate for the water savings because alternative 3 is 4.8 times the cost of Alternative 2. Alternative 2 is the most cost effective alternative because it increases irrigation efficiency, and improves the riparian habitat and resource, but has a much lower cost when compared to Alternative 3 and 4.

17

5.0 CERTIFICATION/REVIEW Water & Environmental Technologies, PC hereby certifies that the information and findings in this report are as described in this document. All statements made herein are true to the best of its knowledge. No expressed or implied warranties, including but not limited to any as to the accuracy of the information obtained, are made. All warranties are expressly disclaimed. This report represents the professional opinion of Water & Environmental Technologies, PC. Recommendations contained in this document were arrived at in accordance with reasonable and customary practices that were currently accepted as of the date and at the location at which the work was performed. Dated this day of , 2009.

By___________________________________________ Its:___________________________________________

Reviewed by:___________________________________ Its:___________________________________________

18

Figures

SOUTH MEADOW CREEK

FLOW

5.0'

GIBBS/GOGGINS SOUTH DITCH
4.0' 2.0'

• • •

FLUME MONTANA FLUME CONSTRUCTION - TREATED WOOD WITH TIN CONDITION - GOOD

WILLOWS

• • •

FLUME PARSHALL FLUME CONSTRUCTION - METAL CONDITION - POOR

C:\drafting\Drafting\Dwgs\MCD_M01\MCD_Site2.dwg, GOGGINS-GIBBS, 4/12/2010 8:07:30 PM

• •

ERODING BANK DETERIORATING CONCRETE RIPRAP REQUIRES MAINTENANCE EVERY SEASON

GOGGINS NORTH DITCH

237 ft

4.0'

• • •

DIVERSION METAL WITH VERTICAL PLANKS STREAMBED ELEVATION CHANGE = 1.8' CONDITION - POOR

SCALE IN FEET

0

5

10

WATER &

ENVIRONMENTAL

TECHNOLOGIES,

PC

MADISON CONSERVATION DISTRICT SOUTH MEADOW IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE

GOGGINS/GIBBS

MCD_Site2.dwg

DATE: 4/12/10

FIGURE 5

FLOW

GOG

GINS

H DITC

OLD WOOD FLUME INOPERABLE

• • •
C:\drafting\Drafting\Dwgs\MCD_M01\MCD_Site3.dwg, GOGGINS, 4/12/2010 2:10:45 PM

FLUME MONTANA FLUME 22 ft FROM DIVERSION CONSTRUCTION - TREATED WOOD WITH TIN CONDITION - GOOD

• • •
5.0'

DIVERSION WOOD FRAMED WITH VERTICAL PLANKS STREAMBED ELEVATION CHANGE = 2.5' CONDITION - POOR
3.6'

2.0'

SCALE IN FEET

0

5

10

WATER &

ENVIRONMENTAL

TECHNOLOGIES,

PC

MADISON CONSERVATION DISTRICT SOUTH MEADOW IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE

GOGGINS

MCD_Site3.dwg

DATE: 4/12/10

FIGURE 7

C:\drafting\Drafting\Dwgs\MCD_M01\MCD_Site5.dwg, LOWER NELSEN, 4/12/2010 2:14:38 PM

FLOW

WILLOWS

4.0'
5.0'

2.0'

• • •

FLUME MONTANA FLUME 799 ft FROM DIVERSION CONSTRUCTION - WOOD CONDITION - POOR

DITCH

• • •

DIVERSION WOOD BEAM AND STEEL ANCHORS WITH VERTICAL PLANKS STREAMBED ELEVATION CHANGE=0' CONDITION - POOR

SCALE IN FEET 0 8 16

WATER & ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES,

PC

MADISON CONSERVATION DISTRICT SOUTH MEADOW IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE

LOWER NELSEN
MCD_Site5.dwg DATE: 4/12/10

FIGURE 9

SOUTH MEADOW CREEK

FLOW

• • •

DIVERSION DETERIORATING RIPRAP OWNER REPLACES EVERY YEAR POOR CONDITION

• • •
C:\drafting\Drafting\Dwgs\MCD_M01\MCD_Site9.dwg, RAMSHORN, 4/12/2010 8:06:14 PM

FLUME MONTANA FLUME 156 ft FROM HEAD GATE CONSTRUCTION - TREATED WOOD WITH TIN CONDITION - GOOD

3.5'

2.0'

5.0'

• • •

HEAD GATE CONCRETE WITH WOOD GATE STREAMBED ELEVATION CHANGE = 0' CONDITION - GOOD

3.5'

SCALE IN FEET

0 RAMSHORN DITCH

5

10

WATER &

ENVIRONMENTAL

TECHNOLOGIES,

PC

MADISON CONSERVATION DISTRICT SOUTH MEADOW IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE

RAMSHORN

MCD_Site9.dwg

DATE: 4/12/10

FIGURE 11

C:\drafting\Drafting\Dwgs\MCD_M01\MCD_Site1.dwg, GIBBS, 4/12/2010 11:54:01 AM

BRIDGE

SOUTH MEADOW CREEK

FLOW

6x6 WOOD CONSTRUCTION

7.0'

• • •

DIVERSION WOOD WITH VERTICAL PLANKS STREAMBED ELEVATION CHANGE = 1.6' CONDITION - FAIR
4.0 '

• • •

' FLUME 2.0 MONTANA FLUME CONSTRUCTION - WOOD WITH POLY TARP CONDITION - FAIR

SCALE IN FEET 0 5 10

WATER & ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES,

MADISON CONSERVATION DISTRICT SOUTH MEADOW IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE

5.0'
PC

GIBBS
MCD_Site1.dwg DATE: 4/12/10

FIGURE 13

DIVERSION PLAN VIEW
BANK FULL WIDTH

DIVERSION SECTION VIEW
10" CONCRETE SIDE WALLS & WING WALLS (TYP.)

EXTERIOR 10" WIDE CONCRETE WALL (TYP.)

STEEL SLIDE GATE LOCATION (NOT SHOWN IN THIS VIEW) FLOOD BYPASS WING WALL DIMENSIONS DETERMINED BY STREAM SIZE AND MAXIMUM FLOWS
10"

INTERIOR 10" WIDE CONCRETE WALL FOR BYPASS CHANNEL

FLOW

8"

3'

2'

FLOW
C:\drafting\Drafting\Dwgs\MCD_M01\MCD_DIVERSION.dwg, DIVERSION, 4/14/2010 12:10:41 PM

STEEL SLIDE GATE FRAME: ROSCOE R-5 OR ENGINEER'S APPROVED EQUAL. INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

10"

10"

TYPICAL FOOTING SIZE MAY VARY DEPENDING ON STREAM SIZE AND MAXIMUM FLOWS

DIVERSION ELEVATION VIEW
FLOOD BYPASS CHANNEL
10"

STEEL SLIDE GATE LOCATION (NOT SHOWN IN THIS VIEW)

WATER &

ENVIRONMENTAL

TECHNOLOGIES,
(FOOTING NOT SHOWN) FOOTING DIMENSIONS DETERMINED BY STREAM SIZE AND MAXIMUM FLOWS

PC

MADISON CONSERVATION DISTRICT SOUTH MEADOW IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE

TYPICAL IN-STREAM DIVERSION

MCD_DIVERSION.dwg

DATE: 4/14/10

FIGURE 14

ROCK WEIR PLAN VIEW

BANK WIDTH @ 50-yr FLOOD

25°

ROCK WEIR SECTION VIEW

A D-1

20-40°
C:\drafting\Drafting\Dwgs\MCD_M01\MCD_ROCKWEIR.dwg, ROCK WEIR, 4/14/2010 9:59:48 AM

A D-1

DESIGNED TO ALLOW FISH PASSAGE AT MINIMUM FLOW

20 -40 °S LO PE
20 -40 PE LO °S

WATER &

ENVIRONMENTAL

TECHNOLOGIES,

PC

MADISON CONSERVATION DISTRICT SOUTH MEADOW IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE

FLOW

TYPICAL ROCK WEIR DIVERSION

MCD_ROCKWEIR.dwg

DATE: 4/14/10

FIGURE 15

FLOW CONTROL

STEEL FRAME

C:\drafting\Drafting\Dwgs\MCD_M01\MCD_SLUICE.dwg, SLUICE, 4/14/2010 10:15:13 AM

GATE IS ADJUSTED AS REQUIRED STEEL GATE

10" CONCRETE

WATER &

ENVIRONMENTAL

TECHNOLOGIES,

PC

MADISON CONSERVATION DISTRICT SOUTH MEADOW IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE

TYPICAL SLUICE GATE

MCD_SLUICE.dwg

DATE: 4/14/10

FIGURE 16

• •

PRE-FABRICATED FLUME CONSTRUCTED OF FIBERGLASS OR METAL INSTALLED IN CONCRETE FOUNDATION PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3

BUILT-IN STAFF GAUGE
C:\drafting\Drafting\Dwgs\MCD_M01\MCD_FLUME.dwg, FLUME, 4/14/2010 3:33:01 PM

2 1

5'

-7

" 1/8

1'

4"

1' - 4"

WATER &

ENVIRONMENTAL

TECHNOLOGIES,

PC

MADISON CONSERVATION DISTRICT SOUTH MEADOW IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE

TYPICAL TRAPEZOIDAL FLUME

MCD_FLUME.dwg

DATE: 4/14/10

FIGURE 17

Appendix A Initial Site Survey Forms

Appendix B Riparian Assessment Forms