South Meadow Creek Water Efficiency Project: Planned Alternative Analysis

8/3/2019 South Meadow Creek Water Efficiency Project: Planned Alternative Analysis

1/31

Planned Alternative AnalysisSouth Meadow Creek Water Efficiency

Project

480 East Park

Suite 200

Butte, MT 59701

April 2010


2/31

Madison Conservation District

South Meadow Creek Water Efficiency Project

Planned Alternative Analysis

Submitted to:

Madison Conservation District

PO Box 1178Ennis, MT 59729

Prepared by:

Water & Environmental Technologies, PC480 East Park, Suite 200Butte, Montana 59701

April 2010


3/31

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PROJECT INDENTIFICATION 4

1.1 Project Location 4

1.2 Project Goal 4

2.0 CURRENT IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE 5

2.1 Initial Site Survey 5

2.2 Detailed Site Evaluation 6

2.2.1 Goggins/Gibbs Site 7

2.2.2 Goggins Site 8

2.2.3 Lower Nelsen Site 8

2.2.4 Ramshorn Site 9

2.2.5

Gibbs Site 9

2.2.6 Detailed Evaluation Summary 10

3.0 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES 12

3.1 Alternative 1 In-Stream Diversion 13

3.2 Alternative 2 Rock Weirs with Grazing Management 13

3.3 Alternative 3 Rock Weirs and Pivot with Grazing Management 13

3.4 Alternative 4 Ground Water Well with Pivot and Grazing Management 13

4.0 ALTERNATIVE COST AND BENEFITS 14

4.1 Alternative 2 Cost Estimate 14



4.4 Alternative Cost Analysis Summary 17

5.0

CERTIFICATION/REVIEW 18


4/31

iii

List of FiguresFigure 1. Site Location - USGS Topographic MapFigure 2. Site Location Aerial PhotoFigure 3. Surveyed SitesFigure 4. Goggins/Gibbs Aerial PhotoFigure 5. Goggins/Gibbs Site Sketch

Figure 6. Goggins Aerial PhotoFigure 7. Goggins Site SketchFigure 8. Lower Nelsen Aerial PhotoFigure 9. Lower Nelsen Site SketchFigure 10. Ramshorn Aerial PhotoFigure 11. Ramshorn Site SketchFigure 12. Gibbs Aerial PhotoFigure 13. Gibbs Site SketchFigure 14. Typical In-Stream DiversionFigure 15. Typical Rock Weir DiversionFigure 16. Typical Sluice Gate

Figure 17. Typical Trapezoidal Flume

List of Appendices

Appendix A. Site Survey FormsAppendix B. Riparian Assessment Forms


5/31

4

1.0 PROJECT INDENTIFICATIONThe South Meadow Creek Water Efficiency project is project created by the MadisonConservation District (MCD) to evaluate aging and failing irrigation infrastructure on SouthMeadow Creek and analyze alternative options to improve water delivery efficiency to irrigatorsand improve riparian habitat.

1.1 Project Location

South Meadow Creek is a tributary of the Madison River that flows out of South Meadow Lake inthe Tobacco Root mountains and flows approximately 11 miles east into Ennis Lake nearMcAlister, MT (See Figure 1). Flow from South Meadow Lake is controlled by an irrigation dambuilt in 1902. The dam was reconstructed in 1978 to increase storage capacity. The upper fivemiles of South Meadow flows through a steeply graded forested region and exhibits B typechannel characteristics. The lower six miles of South Meadow Creek flow through lower gradientreaches dominated by agricultural and ranching use and consists of a C type channel. The lowerreach 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. Flowmeasurements collected by various agencies range from 1-60 cfs. Minimum flow to support fishhas been estimated to be 8.5 cfs; however, the lower reach is chronically dewatered and cannotsupport fish.

1.2 Project Goal

Many diversions and head gates along South Meadow Creek are ineffective due to age and poorcondition, 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 sedimentagradation, avulsion, bed scour, bank erosion, fish blockage, and long term impacts of waterquality and habitat.

The South Meadow Creek Water Efficiency project is a planning, design, and construction projectdesigned to:

Identify and prioritize irrigation infrastructure sites that may be impacting the waterquality and habitat of South Meadow Creek

Analyze cost effective modifications or replacement structures that will improveirrigation 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-streamflows and habitat by reducing surface water consumption caused by inefficient irrigationinfrastructure and management.


6/31

5

2.0 CURRENT IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE

The MCD identified ten diversion sites that local landowners were interested in modifying orreplacing by surveying and interviewing landowners with water rights to South Meadow Creek.The ten sites are shown in Figure 3.

2.1 Initial Site SurveyOn March 22, 2010, a resource advisory team consisting of personnel from the MCD, Water andEnvironmental Technologies (WET), Montana Department of Natural Resources andConservation (DNRC), and Montana Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) evaluatedthe ten diversion sites indentified by the MCD. Table 2.1 summarizes the chosen sites andassociated structures.

Table 2.1 Initial Survey Sites

SiteDescription WaterRightOwner DiversionManager DiversionConstruction HeadGateConstruction

FlowMeasurement

DeviceNoof

Ditches MaxFlow(cfs)Gibbs

Gibbs

Gibbs

wood

ties

w/planksnone

Montana

flume

1

4.13

Goggins/Gibbs Goggins/Gibbs Endecott/Gibbs metalw/planks noneMontana&

Parshallflume2 8.64

Goggins Goggins Endecott woodw/planks none Montanaflume 1 4.51

Oliver Oliver Oliverconcrete

w/planks

concrete

w/screwgateMontanaflume 1 2.25

LowerNelsen Nelsen Endecottsteelposts

w/plankswood Montanaflume 1 1.00

MiddleNelsen Nelsen Endecottsteelposts

w/planks

CMPw/

slidinggateMontanaflume 1 1.00

UpperNelsen Nelsen Endecottsteelposts

w/planks

CMPw/

slidinggate

Montanaflume 1 1.00

Hughes Hughes Hughes woodplanksconcrete

w/woodgatemetalweir 1 5.63

Ramshorn RamshornLLC Doud riprapconcrete

w/woodgateMontanaflume 1 3.51

ElkHills ElkHills Barlow NACMPw/screw

gateNA 1 1.00

The resource advisory team evaluated and prioritized each site for possible modification orreplacement based on five categories:

1. Current Condition and Effectiveness2. Environmental Benefits3. Technical Feasibility4. Economic Feasibility5. Landowner Interest

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


7/31

6

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

Evaluators SiteScoreGoggins/Gibbs Goggins Lower

Nelsen Ramshorn Gibbs Oliver UpperNelsen Hughes ElkHills MiddleNelsenJT 15 13 12 11 9 5 5 4 2 4

WK 12 13 11 10 6 7 7 7 5 5

SHK 13 11 11 9 10 8 7 5 7 8

ACS 14 10 12 9 3 4 7 4 2 5

JB 14 13 12 8 9 8 6 7 6 4

Unknown

noname12 10 10 9 9 8 5 3 8 3

TotalScore 80 70 58 56 46 40 37 30 30 29

Once the sites were ranked, the resource advisory team decided to further evaluate the top fiveranked sites, which include the Goggins/Gibbs, Goggins, Lower Nelsen, Ramshorn, and Gibbssites.

2.2 Detailed Site Evaluation

The detailed site evaluation included surveying the locations of the structures such as thediversions, head gates, and flumes.

In addition, the primary ditch locations were surveyed as well. For the purpose of this PAA, theprimary ditch is defined as the main ditch stemming from the stream diversion to the first branchor leg of another ditch that is supplied by the main ditch.

The condition and of each structure was qualitatively evaluated to determine the effectiveness andefficiency. 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 sufficientcapacity for the full range of irrigation flows. Most structures less than five yearsold would fall into this criterion.

Good structure is intact and sound. Some sign of leakage is present. No sign ofheaving present. Regular monthly maintenance is required to prevent leakage.


8/31

7

Operates easily and provides sufficient capacity for the full range of irrigationflows.

Fair structure is intact, however, structural issues exist that may affect operationand accuracy. Frequent maintenance is required to prevent leakage. Structureheaves every winter and needs to be reset every spring prior to irrigation season.

Operates with frequent maintenance and provides sufficient capacity for normalflows 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. Completestructure failure may be imminent. Diversion manager may alter the stream bedelevation or banks in order to divert and control irrigation flows at times or thewhole irrigation season.

A riparian assessment was completed at each site in order to evaluate the riparian habitat. Theriparian assessment was completed as per methods outlined in the Montana NRCS document Riparian Assessment (September 2004). The riparian assessment evaluates a combination ofgeomorphic conditions and vegetation to assess the sustainability and function of the ripariancorridor and will help identify possible anthropogenic impacts and land management issues thatmay be modified to increase the riparian function. The riparian assessment is a quantitativeassessment that compares potential to actual riparian sustainability and function by assessing andrelating the comparison to a percentage. The site is determined to be sustainable and functionalbased on the following percentages:

Sustainable = 80 100% At Risk = 50 80% Not Sustainable = Less than 50%

The Montana NRCSRiparian Assessment (September 2004) document and field survey forms arein Appendix B.

2.2.1 Goggins/Gibbs Site

The Goggins/Gibbs diversion is managed by Mrs. Endecott and Mr. Gibbs. The site consists of ametal diversion with vertical planks and two ditches without head gates. Figures 4 and 5 show thediversion, flumes, and primary ditch locations. Interviews with Mrs. Endecott and Mr. Gibbsindicate it is very difficult to divert sufficient flows and the ditches fill with sediment during theirrigation 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 ofmaterial from the downstream side. Upstream of the diversion is an eroding bank and anaggrading stream bed.

The north ditch is used by Mrs. Endecott to flood irrigate approximately 110 acres with a possiblemaximum flow of 4.51cfs. The flume is a metal Parshall flume located approximately 237 ftdown ditch of the diversion. The flume is in poor condition because it is bowed, shows signs of


9/31

8

excessive leakage, and there is evidence the flume operates under submerged conditions, whichreduces the accuracy of the flume.

The south ditch is used by Mrs. Endecott and Mr. Gibbs to flood irrigate approximately 50 acreswith a possible maximum flow of 8.64 cfs. The flume is a Montana flume constructed of treatedwood and tin and is in good condition.

The riparian assessment indicates the stream channel is slightly down cutting with some lateralerosion but has access to the floodplain. The stream channel type is C4. Flow alteration by thediversion 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 eliminatedthe regeneration of large woody species. Hoof shear is present along the banks. The total scorefor 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. Theabsence 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 structurewith vertical planks as checks. The diversion is in poor condition. Mrs. Endecott indicatessufficient 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 apossible maximum flow of 4.51 cfs. An old flume at the head of the ditch is inoperable and is nolonger used. A newer flume approximately 22 ft down ditch is used to measure flow. The newflume 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 widenedareas but has access to the floodplain. The stream channel type is C4. Grazing practices havereduced the stable riparian vegetation to two species and has eliminated the regeneration of largewoody species. The total score for the Goggins site is 63% which indicates the riparian habitat isat risk.


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 aroundthe edges of the diversion and aggradation upstream of the diversion. The diversion is in poorcondition.

The primary ditch flows through the riparian corridor of South Meadow Creek that is dominatedby willows and continues for approximately 2,936 ft. Willow bunches in the riparian corridorhave created flow blockages in the ditch and areas with flow loss, avulsion, and aggradation.


10/31

9

The head gate is located approximately 753 ft down ditch from the diversion and the flume isanother 44 ft down ditch. Both the flume and head gate are constructed of wood and are in poorcondition. The combination of flow blockages in the willows, long distances between diversionand 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 isstable and has access to the floodplain. The stream channel type is C4. Grazing practices havereduced the stable riparian vegetation to three species and has eliminated the regeneration of largewoody species. Hoof shear is present. The Lower Nelsen rating is 59%, which indicates theriparian habitat is at risk.

The diversion mostly likely acts as a fish barrier during operation in the irrigation season. Theabsence 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 riprap and is in poor condition. The rip rap is undersized for large flood events, which creates thepotential for blow outs and rip rap washing downstream. Mr. Doud has indicated a portion of therip rap is replaced every year.

The head gate is constructed of concrete and wood and is in good condition. Mr. Doud hasindicated the gate works well and he can control the flow easily. The primary ditch is used toflood 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 islocated 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 theRamshorn 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 createspotential 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 infair condition. The flume is currently canted due to winter heaving and Mr. Gibbs indicated theflume is leveled and reset every year.

The primary ditch flows approximately 583 ft with a maximum flow of 4.13 cfs. Mr. Gibbs did


11/31

10

not indicate how many acres the ditch serves.

The riparian assessment indicates the stream channel has been over widened in areas due to hoofshear and lateral erosion is evident. Some down cutting was observed. The stream channel type isC4. Stream flow has been altered due to the aggradation upstream and scour downstream of thediversion. 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.


2.2.6 Detailed Evaluation Summary

The detailed irrigation infrastructure evaluation illustrates each site requires replacement of one orall structures in order to improve the irrigation efficiency. Table 2.3 summarizes the detailedevaluation results.

Table 2.3 Irrigation Infrastructure Evaluation Results

Structure InfrastructureConditionGoggins/Gibbs Goggins LowerNelsen Ramshorn Gibbs

Diversion Poor Poor Poor Poor Fair

HeadGate Notinstalled Notinstalled Poor Good NotInstalled

Flume

NorthDitch

Poor

SouthDitch

Good

Good Poor Good Fair

AcresServed

NorthDitch

110

SouthDitch 50

30 85 50 NA

MaximumDitch

Flow(cfs)

NorthDitch

4.51

SouthDitch

8.64

4.51 1.00 3.51 4.13

FishBarrier

duringoperationyes Yes Yes No Yes

FishScreenon

HeadGateNA NA No No NA

NA Not Applicable

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


12/31

11

The riparian assessment revealed every site except the Ramshorn diversion has been impacted bygrazing practices and the riparian habitat is at risk or not sustainable. Table 2.4 summarizes theriparian assessment scores.

Table 2.4 Riparian Assessment of Irrigation Sites

Assessment

CategoryBest

PossibleScore

Site

Goggins/Gibbs Goggins LowerNelsen Ramshorn Gibbs

StreamIncisement 8 6 6 6 6 6

LateralCutting 8 5 5 3 8 3

StreamBalance 6 4 4 4 6 4

Deep,Binding

Rootmass6 2 2 4 NA 0

Riparian

VegetativeCover6 4 4 4 NA 0

NoxiousWeeds 3 2 3 2 2 2

UndesirablePlants 3 2 2 2 2 2

WoodySpecies

Establishment

8

0

2

4

NA

0

BrowseUtilization 8 0 1 0 NA 0

Riparian

Area/Floodplain

Characteristics

8 4 6 4 6 2

TotalScore 29/51=57% 35/56=63% 33/56=59% 30/36=83% 19/56=34%

Rating AtRisk AtRisk AtRisk SustainableNot

Sustainable

NA Not Applicable


13/31

12

3.0 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES

In order to increase irrigation efficiency, it is recommended new, modern structures replace theaging 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 tosafely pass the 50-year event peak flows without damaging the structure or surrounding streambank. It should be designed to pass bank full flows without constriction to prevent upstreamaggradation and lateral scour. The stream elevation change should be minimized to preventdownstream scour and avulsion. The advantage of in-stream diversions is that they provide goodflow 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 ofnew in-stream diversions.

Rock-weir diversions are diversions made of rip rap and are designed to allow fish passage even atlow 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. Thedisadvantage of the rock weir is higher design cost due to complex flow modeling required, andthe 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 weirdiversions.

Sluice gates should be placed at the head of each ditch to provide flow control into each ditch. Atypical sluice gate is shown in Figure 16. Pre-fabricated, light duty sluice gates are designed forsmall irrigation ditches. Sluice gates are cost effective structures that provide good flow controland low maintenance. Most light duty sluice gates are installed in a concrete foundation andcoupled 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 beinstalled at the Goggins/Gibbs, Goggins, Lower Nelsen, and Gibbs sites. If fish loss into theditches is a concern, then all new sluice gates and the existing head gate at the Ramshorn siteshould be constructed with rotating drum fish screens.

The Montana and Parshall flumes that need to be replaced should be replaced with Trapezoidalflumes. Figure 17 shows a typical Trapezoidal flume. Trapezoidal flumes were designed for smallirrigation 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 flumesare cost effective and much easier to install than traditional methods of building flumes in placewith 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 willonly improve if land management practices are modified. Methods such as riparian buffers andgrazing rest/rotation will increase riparian health and improve the resource of South MeadowCreek.


14/31

13

3.1 Alternative 1 In-Stream Diversion

The first alternative discussed will be full replacement of the diversions with a new in-streamdiversion along with replacement of the flumes and installation of new sluice gates. Replacing theaging and failing structures will increase efficiency and greatly reduce the operation andmaintenance costs for the diversion manager. However, structure replacement alone will notbenefit the resource of South Meadow Creek because fish passage and riparian habitat will not beaddressed.

3.2 Alternative 2 Rock Weirs with Grazing Management

The second alternative would be diversion replacement with rock weirs, installation of newflumes, and installation of sluice gates with rotary drum fish screens. The rock weirs wouldprovide fish passage and the screens would prevent fish loss in the ditches. Replacement withrock weirs in conjunction with new grazing management practices that would establish a protectedriparian buffer would enhance and benefit South Meadow Creek and the surrounding ripariancorridor.

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 bereplaced with a pivot. The primary ditch would convey water to a small pond or pump inlet forthe pivot and the fields would be irrigated via the pivot rather than the flooding method. Pivotsare more efficient, thus less water would be diverted from South Meadow Creek. Diversionmanagers would have to agree to using water only as required and not diverting the full waterright 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. Thewell and pivot structure in conjunction with new grazing management practices, that wouldestablish a protected riparian buffer, would enhance and benefit South Meadow Creek and thesurrounding riparian corridor. However, review of local well logs and conversations with localdrillers indicate the ground water resource may not be sufficient to support large irrigation wells.


15/31

14

4.0 ALTERNATIVE COST AND BENEFITS

Costs for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 were evaluated in order to compare the cost benefits. Cost forAlternative 1 was not evaluated because it did not provide benefit for the resource. All costs werebased on replacing structures at one site. Replacement includes one diversion, flume, andinstalling 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 comparecosts.

4.1 Alternative 2 Cost Estimate

Cost for Alternative 2 includes labor and materials to construct three rock weirs, one new sluicegate with a fish screen, and one flume. Table 4.1 summarizes the alternative 2 costs. Total costfor alternative 2 is estimated to be $49,630.

Table 4.1 Alternative 2 Cost Estimate

Task/Material UnitCost Units CostDetailedTopographicSurvey $2,200.00 /lump 1 lump $2,200

Engineer Permitting/Design $80.00 /hr 40 hours $3,200

Drafting Permitting/Design $65.00 /hr 10 hours $650

Administrative Permitting/Design $40.00 /hr 4 hours $160

Engineer ConstructionOversight $80.00 /hr 40 hours $3,200

Mob/Demob Excavator $600.00 /trip 1 roundtrip $600

Surveyor stakinglines $900.00 /day 1 days $900

Excavator demoolddiversionandprepnew

site$125.00 /hour 6 hours $750

Excavator rockweirconstruction $125.00 /hour 20 hours $2,500

Labor constructionsupport 2laborers $35.00 /hour 80 hours $2,800

Oversizedrip

rap

$70.00

/cyd

14

cyds

$980

Excavator flumeandsluicegateconstruction $125.00 /hour 4 hours $500

Sluicegate 24"steelframeandgate $1,383.00 /each 1 lump $1,383

Fishscreen rotatingdrum(14cfs) $16,000.00 /each 1 lump $16,000

Crushedgravel $35.00 /cyd 4 cyds $140

StabilizationGeotextile $3.48 /syd 4 syds $14

Mischardware $400.00 /each 1 lump $400

Excavator finalgradingandrecontourstream

channelandbanks$125.00 /hour 12 hours $1,500

Revegetate nativeseedmix $150.00 /each 1 lump $150

Weedspraying

$150.00

/each

1

lump

$150

Cost $38,177

Insurance,bonds,permits(15%) $5,726.54

Contingency(15%) $5,726.54

TotalCost $49,630


16/31

15


The Alternative 3 includes cost to construct rock weirs, a new flume, a sluice gate with a fishscreen, and a pivot with a pond inlet that is supplied by the existing ditch. The total cost estimateis $235,807.




Drafting Permitting/Design $65.00 /hr 30 hours $1,950

Adminstrative Permitting/Design $40.00 /hr 4 hours $160




Excavator demoolddiversionandprep

newsite $125.00 /hour 6 hours $750

Excavator rockweirconstruction $125.00 /hour 20 hours $2,500


Oversizedriprap $70.00 /cyd 14 cyds $980

Excavator flumeandsluicegate

construction$125.00 /hour 4 hours $500

Sluicegate 24"steelframeandgate $1,383.00 /each 1 lump $1,383

Fishscreen rotatingdrum(14cfs) $16,000.00 /each 1 lump $16,000

Crushedgravel $35.00 /cyd 4 cyds $140

StabilizationGeotextile $3.48 /syd 4 syds $14

Mischardware

$400.00

/each

1

lump

$400

Excavator finalgradingandrecontour

streamchannelandbanks$125.00 /hour 12 hours $1,500


Weedspraying $150.00 /each 1 lump $150

Excavator buildingpivotpumpinlet

andpond$125.00 /hour 12 hours $1,500

Pumpandinlethardware $11,113.00 /lump 1 lump $11,113

Extendingpowertopumpandpivot $25.00 /ft 1,500 feet $37,500

Pivothardwareandinstallation $85,000.00 /lump 1 lump $85,000

Cost $181,390



TotalCost $235,807


17/31

16


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 diversionsite. The total cost estimate is $312,637.




Drafting Permitting/Design $65.00 /hr 60 hours $3,900

Adminstrative Permitting/Design $40.00 /hr 8 hours $320




Excavator demoolddiversion,flume,

andheadgate $125.00 /hour 2 hours $250


Excavator finalgradingandrecontour

streamchannelandbanks$125.00 /hour 20 hours $2,500


Weedspraying $150.00 /each 1 lump $150

Drilling DualRotary 12"Casing $190.00 /foot 180 feet $34,200

16"Stainlessscreen,80slot $320.00 /foot 40 feet $12,800

AirBurstDevelopment $6,600.00 /lump 1 lump $6,600

72hourdrawdowntest $6,120.00 /lump 1 lump $6,120

Pumpsystem

1,200

gpm

LST

$24,000.00

/lump

1

lump

$24,000

Extendingpowertopumpandpivot $25.00 /ft 1,500 feet $37,500

Pivothardwareandinstallation $85,000.00 /lump 1 lump $85,000

Cost $240,490



TotalCost $312,637


18/31

17

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 theground 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, thehigh cost of the pivot compared to Alternative 2 does not compensate for the water savingsbecause alternative 3 is 4.8 times the cost of Alternative 2.

Alternative 2 is the most cost effective alternative because it increases irrigation efficiency, andimproves the riparian habitat and resource, but has a much lower cost when compared toAlternative 3 and 4.


19/31

18

5.0 CERTIFICATION/REVIEW

Water & Environmental Technologies, PC hereby certifies that the information and findings in thisreport are as described in this document. All statements made herein are true to the best of itsknowledge. No expressed or implied warranties, including but not limited to any as to the accuracy ofthe 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 andcustomary practices that were currently accepted as of the date and at the location at which the workwas performed.

Dated this day of , 2009.

By___________________________________________

Its:___________________________________________

Reviewed by:___________________________________

Its:___________________________________________


20/31

Figures


21/31

FLU

ME

MON

TANAFLUME

CON

STRUCTION-TREATEDWOODWITHTIN

CON

DITION-GOOD

GIBBS/GOGGINSSOUTHDITCH

GOGGINSNORTHDITCH

WILLOWS

FLOW

ERODINGBANK

DETERIORATINGCONCRETERIPRAP

REQUIRESMAINTENANCEEVERYSEASON

DIVERSION

METALWITHVERTICALPLANKS

STREAMBEDELEVATIONCHANG

E=1.8'

CONDITION-POOR

5.0'

2.0'

4.0'

4.0'

237ft

FLUM

E

PARS

HALLFLU

CONS

TRUCTIO

COND

ITION-P

SOUTHMEADOWCREEK

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

MCD_S

DATE:

SOUTHM 0


22/31

GOGGINSDITCH

OLDWOO

DFLUME

INO

PERABLE

FLOW

DIVERSION

WOODFRAMEDWITHVERTICALP

LANKS

STREAMBEDELEVATIONCHANGE

=2.5'

CONDITION-POOR

FLUME

MONTANAFLUME22ftFR

OMDIVERSION

CONSTRUCTION-TREATEDWOODWITHTIN

CONDITION-GOOD

3.6'

2.0'

5.0'

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

0

MCD_S

SOUTHM

DATE:


23/31

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

5.0'

2.0'

4.0'

DITCH

WILLOWS

DIVERSION

WOOD BEAM AND STEEL ANCHORS WITH

VERTICAL PLANKS

STREAMBED ELEVATION CHANGE=0'

CONDITION - POOR

FLUME

MONTANA FLUME 799 ft FROM DIVERSION

CONSTRUCTION - WOOD

CONDITION - POOR

FLOW


24/31

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

RAMSHORNDITCH

HEADGATE

CONCRET

EWITHWOODGATE

STREAMB

EDELEVATIONCHANGE=0'

CONDITIO

N-GOOD

FLUME

MONTAN

AFLUME156ftFROMHEADGATE

CONSTR

UCTION-TREATEDWOODWITHTIN

CONDITION-GOOD

3.5'

5.0'

3.5'

2.0'

DIVERSION

DETERIORAT

INGRIPRAP

OWNERREPLACESEVERYYEAR

POORCONDITION

FLOW

SOUTHMEADOWCREEK

0

MCD_S

DATE:

SOUTHM


25/31

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

DIVERSION

WOOD WITH VERTICAL PLANKS

STREAMBED ELEVATION CHANGE = 1.6'

CONDITION - FAIR

FLUME

MONTANA FLUME

CONSTRUCTION - WOOD WITH POLY T

7.0'

FLOW

SOUTH MEADOW CREEK

4.0'

2.0'

5.0'

6x6 WOOD CONSTRUCTION

BRIDGE


26/31

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

STEELSLIDEGATE

FRAME:ROSCOER-5OR

ENGINEER'S

APPROVEDEQUAL.INST

ALLPER

MANUFACTURER'SRECO

MMENDATIONS.

10"C

ONCRETE

SIDE

WALLS&

WINGWALLS

(TYP

.)

FLOOD

BYPASS

FLOW

BANKFULLWID

TH

10"

WINGWALLDIMENSIONSDETERMINED

BYSTREAM

SIZEANDMAXIMUMFLOWS

FLOOD

BYPASS

CHANNEL

STEELSLIDEGATELOCATION

(NOTSHOWNINTHISVIEW)

10"

(FOOTINGNOTSHOWN)

FOOTINGDIMENSIONSD

ETERMINED

BYSTREAMSIZEANDMA

XIMUMFLOWS

10"

2'

8"

STEELSLIDEGATELOCATION

(

NOTSHOWNINTHISVIEW)

TYPICALFOOTINGSIZEMAY

ONSTREAMSIZEANDMAXIM

FLOW

MCD_

DATE

SOUTT

DIVERSIONPLANVIEW

DIVERSION

SECTI

DIVERSIONELEVA

TIONVIEW


27/31

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

FL

OW

BANKWIDTH@

50-yrFLOOD

20-40SLOPE

20-40SLOPE

25

AD-1

20-40

D

ESIGNEDTOALLOWFISHPASSAGEATMINIMUM

AD-1

MCD_

DATE

SOUTTY

ROCKWEIRPLANVIEW

ROCKWEIRSECTIONVIEW


28/31

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

STEELFRAME

STEELGATE

FLOWCONTROL

10"CONCRETE

GATEIS

ADJUSTEDAS

REQUIRED

MCD_

DATE

SOUT


29/31

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

5'-7

1/8

"

1' - 4"

4"

1'

PRE-FABRICATEDFLUMECONSTRUCTEDOF

FIBERGLAS

SORMETAL

INSTALLED

INCONCRETEFOUNDATIONPER

MANUFACT

URERSRECOMMENDATIONS

BUILT-IN

STAFFGAUGE

1

2

3

4

6

5

7

8

9

10

MCD_

DATE

SOUTT


30/31

Appendix A

Initial Site Survey Forms


31/31

Appendix B

Riparian Assessment Forms

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	madison-conservation-district
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

South Meadow Creek Water Efficiency Project: Planned Alternative Analysis

Documents