Odessa Subarea Special Study Appraisal Investigation Columbia Basin Project

Public Information Meeting October 23, 2007 Moses Lake, WA

Meeting Objectives

• Provide update on appraisal investigation analyses

• Provide overview of study process and schedule

• Obtain feedback on appraisal investigation results

Study Purpose

• Continue phased development of the Columbia Basin Project as authorized

• Replace groundwater pumping in the Study area with a surface water supply from the Columbia Basin Project

Blue Lake

Columbia River

Snake River

Columbia River

Crab Creek

Crab Creek

PROSSE R DIVERSION D AM

East Low Canal

Pot

hole

s E

ast C

anal

Main C

anal

W6 4

5 W

a ste

wa y

Winchester

Wasteway

PE 1

6.4

Was

tew

ay

West C

anal

Royal

Branch

Canal

Wes

t Can

al

West Canal

Lind Coulee

Wasteway

Esquatzel Diversion Canal

Eltopia

East Low C

anal

West Canal

Potholes

East Canal

Branch Canal

Poth

oles

Eas

t Can

al

B E N T O N

Odessa Subarea Odessa Ground Water Feeder Canal GRAND COULEE DAM S T E V E N S F E R R Y O K A N O G A N Special Study Area Management Subarea NORTH DAM

Agricultural fields irrigated with groundwater and within Study Area Lake

C H E L A N Roosevelt Reclamation Dam Canal or Wasteway

County River or Stream

Irrigation District Waterbody Represents current and petitioned boundary Banks

Lake 0 5 10 15 20

Miles

DRY FALLS DAM

L I N C O L N

D O U G L A S

Lake Billy Lenore Clapp Lake PINTO DAM

Soap Lake

Sylvan Lake

C H E L A N

Rocky Coulee Wasteway

Odessa Ground Water Management Subarea

G R A N T Moses Lake

Potholes Reservoir

A D A M S Frenchman Hills Lake

Frenchman Hills Wasteway

Frenchman Hills O'SU LLIVAN DAM Tunnel K I T T I TA S

Lower Crab Creek

Scooteney Wahluke Branch Canal Wasteway Wahluke Siphon

Scooteney WH I T M A N Reservoir

YA K I M A

Ringold Wasteway

B EN T O N

F R A N K L I N This reference graphic is intended for informational purposes only. It is meant to assist in feature location relative to other landmarks. Geographic features and boundaries have been intentionally simplified in an attempt to provide a more readable product. No representation is made as to accuracy of this document. Irrigation district boundaries do not represent the true legal boundaries of the districts. They are approximations based on previous hard-copy maps of differing scales and not on any survey data.

Sources: Upper Columbia Area Office, Ephrata Field Office & Pacific Northwest Regional Office

Prepared by Bureau of Reclamation PNGIS

on September 25, 2006 WA L L A W A L L A

StudyArea

Study Process Overview

• Organize and Develop Plan of Study • Pre-appraisal Investigation • Appraisal Investigation (Pre-plan formulation) • Feasibility Investigation (Plan formulation) • Environmental Regulatory Requirements • Alternative Selected • Repayment Contract Discussions Begin • Construction Authority w/Federal Appropriations

• Final Engineering Design and Specifications • Award Construction Contract

PASS Recommendations

• Four Water Delivery Alternatives

Infrastructure to convey surface water togroundwater irrigated lands in Study area

• Water Supply Options

Replacement surface water supply for currentgroundwater irrigation in Study area

Water Delivery Alternatives

Alternative

Groundwater Acreage Supplied

Estimated Water Supply

Needed

acre-feetacres percent of total

Alternative A: Construct East High Canal

140,000 100 515,300

Alternative B: North portion of EHC. Enlarge & extend ELC.

127,300 91 453,200

Alternative C: Enlarge East Low Canal

70,100 50 216,800

Alternative D: Use existing East Low Canal

40,700 29 125,900

Water Storage Options • Lake Roosevelt Re-Operation • Banks Lake Drawdown • Banks Lake Raise • Potholes Reservoir Re-operation • Dry Coulee Reservoir • Rocky Coulee Reservoir • Lind Coulee Reservoir • Lower Crab Creek Reservoir • Black Rock Coulee Reservoir • Canal System Efficiency Improvement

Estimated Groundwater AcreageBy Water Supply Option

Water Supply Option Groundwater Acreage Served

acres percent Banks Lake

Draw down to 1563’ Up to 19,000 14

Draw down below 1563’ Up to 140,000 100

Operational raise of 2’ Up to 19,000 14

Potholes Reservoir Reoperation Up to 19,000 14

Dry Coulee Reservoir Up to 140,000 100

Rocky Coulee Reservoir Up to 46,900 34

Lower Crab Creek Reservoir Up to 140,000 100

Groundwater Conditions

Engineering Studies

Engineering Scope and Limitations

• Investigated four water delivery alternatives and sixwater storage options

• Designs and cost estimates based on previousstudies and limited design data

• Maximum 140,000 groundwater irrigated acres

• Columbia River water availability limited – ESA Fish flow objectives must be met – Water only available for diversion in September, October,

December, and January in driest years

• Delivery of 3.0 acre-feet per acre annually

Water Delivery Alternatives

Four water delivery alternatives investigated involving one or both of the following components

• Construction of new East High Canal system (previous feasibility investigation between 1960s and 1980s)

• Using existing East Low Canal system.

Alternative A –

Construct new East High Canal system.

Alternative B –

Construct north portion of new East High Canal system.

Expand (south of I-90) and extend (near Connell) existing East Low Canal.

Alternative C –

Expand existing East Low Canal south of Interstate 90.

Alternative D –

Use existing East Low Canal capacity north of Interstate 90.

Water Delivery Alternatives Estimated Water Supply Needs

Alternative

Groundwater Acreage Supplied

Estimated Water Supply

Needed

acre-feetacres percent of total

Alternative A: Construct East High Canal

140,000 100 515,300

Alternative B: North portion of EHC. Enlarge & extend ELC.

127,300 91 453,200

Alternative C: Enlarge East Low Canal

70,100 50 216,800

Alternative D: Use existing East Low Canal

40,700 29 125,900

Water Supply Options

Options investigated included:

• Operational modifications to existing storage facilities • Banks Lake (Dry Falls and North Dams) • Potholes Reservoir (O’Sullivan Dam)

• New reservoirs • Dry Coulee Dam and Reservoir • Rocky Coulee Dam and Reservoir • Lower Crab Creek Dam and Reservoir (two size options)

Columbia River: Available Supply Odessa Subarea Special Study - Appraisal Level Analysis

Columbia River 90% Exceedance Monthly Available Flow Volumes Based on BPA Hyd-Sim Results 1929-1998 and Observed 1999-2005

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Volu

me

(Maf

)

Alt A Annual Diversion Irrigation Season

Canal Availability Window

Columbia Available Flow

Operational Modifications

• Reclamation policy - Any proposed operational modification cannot result in appreciable increased risk of dam failure

• Risk analyses conducted to ensure modifications are “risk neutral”

• Detailed risk analyses conducted during next Study phase (feasibility analyses)

Banks Lake Reservoir Proposed Operational Modifications

• Draft reservoir below current drawdown elevations

– Does not increase dam safety threshold risks

• Raise water surface elevation by 2 feet

– Raise in normal high water operating level may increase dam safety threshold risks

Model Results: Banks Low Elevation

Odessa Subarea Special Study - Appraisal Level Analysis

Banks Lake End-of-Month Elevations 10% of Years at or Lower

CBP-RW Model Results for Period-of-Record 1929-2005

1535

1540

1545

1550

1555

1560

1565

1570

1575

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Elev

atio

n (f

eet)

Design Max 1570

Baseline

Alt A

Alt B

Alt C

Alt D

Design Min 1537 Minimum Elevation to Release 10,000 cfs

Banks Lake 2’ Raise Proposed Structural Modifications

• Structural modifications required to both Dry Falls and North Dams and Grand Coulee Feeder Canal

• Dam crest raise of 2 feet

• Install vertical “crackstopper” filter

• Raise Grand Coulee Feeder Canal lining by 2 feet

Potholes Reservoir Proposed Operational Modifications

• Shift portion of spring feed to fall season; storemore water in fall / winter season (earlier thancurrent operation) • Raise winter operating level about 3 feet; requiredownstream evacuation route • No change to normal high pool level • Overall higher pool throughout year and higherannual “average” reservoir elevation may not meetReclamation dam safety risk thresholds

Potholes Reservoir (O’Sullivan Dam) Proposed Structural Modifications

• Modifications limited to section of dam on Lower Crab Creek side

• Raise dam crest by 5 feet

• Install vertical “crackstopper” filter

New Storage Reservoirs

• Dry Coulee (481,000 ac-ft)

• Rocky Coulee (126,000 ac-ft)

• Lower Crab Creek (200,000 ac-ft) (472,000 ac-ft)

I

/

I

{Normal WS

, £I. )" 4115. 0

,

Proposed Lower Reservoir Outlet

Proposed Ou'Uet Control St'vct'u,.'~ Existing

r ;0"

~.'

Proposed Inlet Control SIn",tu," -'

... /

Dry Coulee Dam / Reservoir Site Plan

Rocky Coulee Dam / Reservoir Site Plan

Lower Crab Crk Dam/Reservoir Site Plan

Appraisal Cost Estimates Assumptions • Based on preliminary engineering designs & analysis

• Relied heavily on previous investigations (from 1960s to 1980s)

• Supplemented with limited additional data – Geology and hydrology data – Preliminary hydrologic models

• Preliminary and not appropriate for determining actual construction costs or seeking construction authority or appropriations from Congress

Appraisal Cost Estimates • Field costs – construction costs only

• Non-contract costs - Costs associated with work or services provided in support of project

• Investigations • Design and specifications development • Construction management • Environmental compliance • Archaeological considerations

• Costs not included, but to be developed duringfeasibility design

• Land Acquisition • Utilities Relocation • Mitigation

Appraisal Cost Estimate Range Water Delivery Alternatives

EHC (140,000 Acres)

Portion of EHC & Expand ELC (127,300 acres)

Expand ELC (70,100 Acres)

Existing ELC (40,700 Acres)

0 1 2 3 4 5

Dollars (in Billions)

Water Supply Options Appraisal Cost Estimate Range

Banks Lake Drawdown

Banks Lake 2' Raise

Potholes Reservoir Reop

Dry Coulee Reservoir

Rocky Coulee Reservoir

Lower Crab Ck (200,000 AF)

Lower Crab Ck (472,000 AF)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Dollars (in Billions)

Total Appraisal Cost Estimate Range Water Delivery and Supply Options Combined

EHC (140, 000 acres)

Portion EHC & Expand ELC (127,300 acres)

Expand ELC (70,100 acres)

Existing ELC (40,700 acres)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Dollars (in Billions)

Total Appraisal Cost Estimate Range Water Delivery and Supply Options Combined Cost per Groundwater Acre Served

0 10 20 30 40 50

Alternative D (40,700 acres)

Alternative C (70,100 acres)

Alternative B (127,300 acres)

Alternative A (140,000 acres)

Dollars (in Thousands)

Appraisal Engineering Investigation Findings

• All alternatives and options technically viable from engineering and operational perspective

• Cost estimates reflect appraisal-level methods, appropriate for relative comparison between alternatives and options

• Additional data collection and analyses required for feasibility-level cost estimates before seeking construction funding

Study Objectives • Replace all or portion of groundwater use with Project surface water.

• Maximize use of existing infrastructure.

• Retain the possibility of full Project development.

• Address Endangered Species Act (ESA) issues.

• Provide environmental and recreational enhancements.

• Minimize potential delay in the study schedule.

• Be developed in phases.

Water Delivery Alternatives Issues and Concerns

Water Supply Options Issues and Concerns

Next Steps Current to 2011 • Public Comment on Appraisal Investigation through Nov. 30 • Select Alternative / Options for Feasibility Investigation • Conduct Feasibility Investigation • Conduct Environmental and Regulatory Compliance • Select Preferred Alternative

• Begin Repayment Contract Negotiations

After 2011 • Obtain Construction Authority and Federal Appropriations • Prepare Final Construction Design & Specifications • Award Contract for Construction

Feasibility Criteria

The agency preferred alternative must . . .

– Be technically viable – Protect Indian Trust Assets – Comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other environmental regulations – Be socially and environmentally acceptable – Be economically justified and financially feasible

Contact Information

Comments by November 30, 2007

By mail: Ellen Berggren Study Manager Bureau of Reclamation 1150 North Curtis Road Boise, ID 83706

By email: StudyManager@pn.usbr.gov

Fax: 208-378-5102

Questions?