Subsurface Storage Feasibility Study Phase 1 Findings Fifteenmile Creek Watershed Council September 5, 2017

PresenterPresentation NotesReminder that this is the other half of the alternatives, not a replacement of the surface storage concept – stakeholders make decisions based on the set of alternatives

Review conceptSummarize Phase 1 FindingsCommunicate critical unknowns to be addressed in Phase 2 (if approved by Stakeholders)

Introduction/BackgroundConcept RefresherProject Tasks and SequencingFindings

Phase 1 Desktop Update and tailor common elements of surface storage studyEvaluate physical feasibility - potential fatal flaws and opportunities Phase 2 – Field evaluation of concept

This presentation is for Phase 1 – desktop fatal flaw evaluation

Subsurface Storage Concept

PresenterPresentation NotesDivert groundwater from alluvial sediments in connection with streamStore in basalt aquifer(s)Withdraw stored water in summer for irrigation in exchange for senior users leasing water instreamLocations where opportunity to exchange with senior water right holder, conditions suitable for diversion

Phase 1 • Update elements of surface storage study

• Source water availability • Regulatory framework for diversion, storage and

protection of water • Identify Fatal Flaws and Key Unknowns

• Physical Feasibility • Cost-effective method for diverting and treating surface

water • Suitable storage aquifer

• Identify locations for Phase 2 testing

PresenterPresentation NotesRegulatory FeasibilityWater Availability AnalysisEcological Flow AnalysisUpdate of Conservation Efficiency and Alternatives Means of Supplying WaterInfrastructure EvaluationPhysical Feasibility (Hydrogeologic Framework)

DISCUSS Regulatory framework next.

Water Availability

• OWRD Water Availability Report (base case) • 80% Exceedance – February and March • 50% Exceedance – January to March

• Apparent worst case scenario indicates 1,921 AF (January and February) as determined in surface storage feasibility assessment

• Storage Reservation (Fifteenmile Creek) • Water Available December – April

PresenterPresentation NotesWater availability assessment is for 15Mile Creek above Jameson CanyonIndicates water available in December – April including Reservation

Worst case scenario including SVF analysis 865 AF (281 MG) and 14.1 cfs (6330 gpm) in January1,056 AF (344 MG) and 19 cfs (8528 gpm) in February

Water Availability

Multi-Purpose Storage Reservation - Fifteenmile Creek

• Up to 5,000 AF of water • Requested by ODA for multi-purpose storage

project for future economic development • Allows water storage November – April • No reservation on Ramsey Creek • Expect OWRD to require a surface water right to

access reservation (rather than groundwater right) • March-April critical steelhead migration – ODFW

consultation

PresenterPresentation NotesUse must be consistent with purposes for which ODA requested reservation

Permitting Framework Option #1 – ASR Project with a New Water Right and a Limited License for ASR Testing

• New irrigation water right to authorize ASR and the use of stored water for irrigation (plus limited license)

• Sources: Fifteenmile Creek below Ramsey Creek, and Ramsey Creek

• Storage season: Feb. & March without reservation

• Water quality: drinking water quality standard

• Transfer existing irrigation water rights instream

PresenterPresentation NotesInitial instream transfers expected to be time-limited.Confirm no additional impacts to existing junior water rights as a result

Water Availability

• Ecological Flow Analysis • Seasonally Varying Flow (SVF) Method preferred by ODFW • OWRD = Funding Agency • SVF Method based on Optimum Flows and no withdrawals in

March & April • Optimum Flows require more water than Instream Water

Rights • ODFW has applied for additional Instream Water Rights • ODFW input required

PresenterPresentation NotesDIFFERENCE IS DIVERSION(s) AT/BELOW CONFLUENCE WITH RAMSEY CREEK

OWRD updating and taking into account diversion (change) Idea of variability

What the Bullets on Slide Mean:

One requirement for determining Water Availability is accounting for the SVF. The SVF method considers instream needs that are based on optimum flows which come from Basin Investigation Reports done in the 60s and 70s. The funding agency, OWRD requires this analysis. These optimum flows require more water then the instream water rights. Additionally, for the Aboveground Study, ODFW did not want withdrawals in March & April in order to provide flushing flows for channel maintenance and juvenile outmigration. Another current development is that ODFW has applied for water rights which require higher flows in Fifteenmile. The optimum flow values may change based on the new water rights. Currently we are coordinating with ODFW to determine any adjustments to the SVF Method, instream flows required, and whether withdrawals can be made in March and April.

Permitting Framework

Option #2 – AR Project with a New Water Right and New “Secondary” Right for Irrigation

• New water right for AR purposes • Source: Fifteenmile Creek below Ramsey Creek; Ramsey

Creek

• Storage season: Jan. to March without reservation

• Water quality: Anti-degradation standard

• New water right to use stored water for irrigation

• Protect existing irrigation water rights instream

Permitting Framework

Other Considerations

• Limits on amount of water available to store • Potential constraints/conditions to use the Storage

Reservation

• Potential constraints imposed by ODFW/DEQ comments • Protection of water left instream

PresenterPresentation Notes

Whether a time-limited transfer “severs” the existing water rights so that a new irrigation right can be issued

NEED WRAP UP FOR REGULATORY SECTION

Conservation and Alternatives Evaluation • Irrigation System Improvements

• 77 acre-feet per year • $5,965 per acre-foot

• Conveyance System Improvements • 227 acre-feet per year • $7,280 per acre-foot

PresenterPresentation NotesThe estimated costs from the 2015 Aboveground Study were inflated at 5% for 2 years to correspond with the 2017 Belowground Study.

Irrigation system improvements can be implemented and would conserve 77 ac-ft of water per year at a cost of $5,965 per ac-ft.

Conveyance system improvements can be implemented and would conserve 227 ac-ft of water per year at a cost of $7,280 per ac-ft.

Preliminary Environmental Assessment

• Potential impacts to Designated Farmland • Must follow Federal and County requirements

• Portions of Fifteenmile Creek designated as a Wild and Scenic River

• Potential for more strict State and Federal regulations • Compliance with floodplain requirements

• Potentially subject to Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management

PresenterPresentation NotesRelevant Sections From 9/1/17 email from Dan MoliniZoning: The Wasco County Zoning Code identifies both of the potential water storage locations as A-1 Exclusive Farm Use (EFU zone). A Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from Wasco County may be required to complete this project.

Farmland: If this project is completed by a federal agency or with assistance from a federal agency, the action area may be subject to review under the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). If this project would result in the permanent conversion of farmland and would need to be approved by Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

Wild and Scenic Rivers: Portions of Fifteenmile Creek are classified as wild and scenic. The project cannot impact flows in a wild and scenic river and would need to be designed to meet state and federal regulations regarding their protection.

Floodplain: Portions of Fifteenmile Creek are located in Zone A, the 100-year flood zone. This project will need to comply with floodplain regulations. If this project is completed by a federal agency or with assistance from a federal agency, the action area may be subject to Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management.

Preliminary Environmental Assessment

• Wetlands exist within Fifteenmile Creek watershed • May require surveys, reports, and permits

• Potential need for a Cultural Resources Inventory • Designated critical habitat for steelhead salmon

• Restricts in-water work window per ODFW • Permits and environmental documents required

• Critical habitat for listed terrestrial wildlife species • Must evaluate impacts of any development

PresenterPresentation NotesRelevant Sections From 9/1/17 email from Dan MoliniWetlands/Waterbodies: Numerous small wetlands are mapped on the National Wetlands Inventory mapper in the Fifteenmile Creek watershed, mainly associated with waterways. If there is potential for the project to impact wetlands, a Wetland Survey should be conducted and a Wetland Delineation Report prepared and submitted to Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). If wetlands cannot be avoided, the appropriate permits should be obtained from the DSL and the USACE, and any necessary mitigation implemented. If this project is completed by a federal agency or with assistance from a federal agency, the action area may be subject to Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands. If any work in wetlands or waterbodies occur, a Joint Permit for removal and fill from USACE and DSL will be required.

Cultural Resources and Historic Properties: If federal permits are required, section 106 regulations will apply. This may include a cultural resources inventory. If historic properties are identified in the project area, evaluation and mitigation may be necessary.

Biological Resources: A search of the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center database on April 2, 2015, revealed 62 records of 16 tracked rare species within a two-mile radius of the Fifteenmile Creek watershed upstream of Dufur.

Fish Species: Of the federally protected fish species shown as potentially present in Wasco County, only the Middle Columbia River DPS of steelhead is present in Fifteenmile Creek and its tributaries (StreamNet, 2015), and Fifteenmile Creek is listed as designated critical habitat. Any in-stream work should occur within the ODFW preferred in-water work window of July 15 to October 31, and steps should be taken to avoid any negative impacts to aquatic species. Prior to construction, the appropriate permits should be obtained and necessary environmental documents completed. This is likely to include Section 7 ESA consultation.

Wildlife Species: Suitable habitat for the listed terrestrial wildlife species is present in the Fifteenmile Creek watershed, including Oregon spotted frog (perennial emergent wetlands with a variety of water depths), northern spotted owl (old growth forest), and fisher (old growth forest). Any proposed development should take these species into consideration, and the necessary environmental evaluations and documentation should be completed.

Infrastructure

• Basalt Wells • Well inventory and documentation in process

• Access • Needed for work under Phase 2 - Coordination with SWCD

• Power and Land Ownership • Underway by Anderson Perry

PresenterPresentation NotesBasalt well inventory – General idea of performance, locations, construction,Grande Ronde wells (3) identified in study area, one is far from creekWells for testing

Physical Feasibility

• Shallow Alluvial System (Diversion/Filtration) • Bedrock (Storage Aquifer) Setting • Aquifer/Well Properties

PresenterPresentation NotesAll of these elements taken into consideration when locating areas where exchange is possible

Many wells completed in Frenchman Springs unit (Wanapum) – which likely daylights at 15mi creek. Not good unit for storage (interference with other wells and possible losses of stored water along creek). Deeper unit is Sentinal Gap member of Grande Ronde- 400 to 600 feet deep to top of GR in the area

Need to discuss basalt well information – Grande Ronde, # of wells, water levels, productivity, etc. Maybe 1 -2 MGD for production rates (not necessarily tied to length of open hole)Less head room moving down valley (around 200+ feet at Ramsey Creek confluence; flowing artesian at WASC 3451)

Grande Ronde Basalt Wells

PresenterPresentation Notes50985 – around 600 gpm, 240 ft head room – 600 feet to top of Grande Ronde50922 – around 1200 gpm, 180 ft head room – 385 feet to top of Grande Ronde3451 – around 300 gpm (based on well log) – flowing artesian (but approaching ground level due to wl declines) – 540 feet to top of Grande Ronde

Project Concept Group 1 755.2 AF (246 MG) 3.15 – 4.2 cfs 1,414 – 1,885 gpm

Group 2 650.4 AF (211 MG) 2.24 – 2.98 cfs 1,005 – 1,337 gpm

Group 3 360.3 AF (117 MG) 1.5 – 2 cfs 673 – 898 gpm

PresenterPresentation NotesINTRODUCE CONCEPT OF GROUPINGS OF WATER RIGHTS?

Diversion and Treatment

• Alluvial aquifer filtered water alternatives: • Alternative 1: Vertical wells screened in the alluvial aquifer • Alternative 2: Horizontal well placed in alluvial aquifer • Alternative 3: Surface diversion with passive infiltration and

collection system

River

Saturated Zone Saturated Zone

Spreading Basin River

Saturated Zone

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

PresenterPresentation NotesDiscuss pros/cons of each.Vertical and horizontal well requires less conflict with surface activities than recharge basin and collection is more unknown than recharge basin. Less cost.Recharge basin takes land out of use for other activities. More expensive. Collection is more known than wells and flexibility in placement.

Laterals/Recharge Basin

PresenterPresentation NotesUse for example of recharge basin with buried water collection laterals. Can also be used as example for horizontal well.

Recharge Basin - Inflow

PresenterPresentation NotesRecharge basin

Recharge Basins

PresenterPresentation NotesRecharge basin

Soil Units • PODs associated with

• 44 – Tygh fine sandy loam

• 24 – Endersby loam

• 35 – Pedigo silt loam

• 49C – Wamic loam

• Units 44 and 24 • Very to extremely

gravelly sand at ~4 ft bgs

• Potentially favorable for alluvial aquifer treatment

• Units 35 and 49C loam to silt loam throughout profile (less favorable)

PresenterPresentation NotesDiscuss Ksat variability in Soil Units 44 and 24

Estimated Depth to Bedrock • Soil Survey

estimated depth to bedrock >6.6 ft bgs at all POD locations

• Well logs indicate depth to bedrock of 5 – 15 ft bgs

• Shallower with distance from creek

PresenterPresentation NotesDiscuss how this relates to alluvial aquifer saturated thickness

Alluvial Aquifer Collection Rate Analysis – Recharge Rates

• Assumptions • 15% of recharged water not recovered • Recharge occurs over 4 month period

Water Rights Group

Treated Water Plus 15% (acre-ft)

Recharge Time Length (months)

Target Recharge Rate (cfs)

1 870 4 3.7 2 750 4 3.2 3 415 4 1.7

Total 2035 4 8.5

PresenterPresentation NotesRecharge time length may vary from 2 to 6 months.

Alluvial Aquifer

Fifteenmile Creek Pumping well

Alluvial Aquifer Drawdown

Alluvial Aquifer Collection Rates Vertical Well

• Assumptions • Well screened in gravelly sand • 10 ft aquifer saturated thickness • Pumping induced drawdown limited to 10 ft

Water Rights Group

Four Month Target Recharge Rate

(cfs)

Alluvial Aquifer Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivity (ft/day)

10 ft Drawdown Single Well Pumping Rate (cfs)

Number of Wells for Target Recharge

Well Distance From River (ft) Well Distance From River

(ft) 40 20 40 20

1 3.7

40 0.067 0.079

55 47 2 3.2 48 40 3 1.7 27 23

Total 8.5 130 110 1 3.7

85 0.142 0.169

26 22 2 3.2 23 19 3 1.7 13 11

Total 8.5 62 52 1 3.7

200 0.333 0.397

11 10 2 3.2 10 8 3 1.7 6 5

Total 8.5 27 23

PresenterPresentation NotesResults highly sensitive to Ksat and distance from stream. Also sensitive to saturated thickness (not shown).

• Assumptions • Well screened in gravelly sand • 10 ft aquifer saturated thickness • Pumping induced drawdown limited to 10 ft

Water Rights Group

Four Month Target Recharge Rate (cfs)

Alluvial Aquifer Saturated Hydraulic

Conductivity (ft/day)

10 ft Drawdown Linear Foot Pumping Rate (cfs)

Linear Feet of Horizontal Well for Target Recharge

Well Distance From River (ft) Well Distance From River

(ft) 40 20 40 20

1 3.7

40 0.005 0.009

778 431 2 3.2 671 371 3 1.7 371 206

Total 8.5 1820 1008 1 3.7

85 0.010 0.018

366 204 2 3.2 316 176 3 1.7 175 97

Total 8.5 857 477 1 3.7

200 0.023 0.043

159 86 2 3.2 138 74 3 1.7 76 41

Total 8.5 373 201

Alluvial Aquifer Collection Rates Horizontal Well

PresenterPresentation NotesResults highly sensitive to Ksat and distance from stream. Also sensitive to saturated thickness (not shown).

• Assumptions • Removed finer textured mater near surface (~ 0 – 2 ft bgs) • 80% of recharge basin applied water captured

Water Rights Group Four Month Target Recharge Rate (cfs)

Alluvial Aquifer Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (ft/day)

Basin Area for Target Recharge (acres)

1 3.7

8

1.10 2 3.2 0.95 3 1.7 0.53

Total 8.5 2.58 1 3.7

26

0.33 2 3.2 0.29 3 1.7 0.16

Total 8.5 0.78

Alluvial Aquifer Collection Rates Recharge Basin

Summary of Alluvial Aquifer Collection Feasibility • Available hydrogeologic information indicates sufficient

collection rates possible to meet target recharge volumes

• Large uncertainty in soil/alluvial aquifer properties • Saturated hydraulic conductivity • Depth to basalt • Aquifer saturated thickness

• Field characterization recommended to: • Improve understanding of soil/alluvial aquifer properties • Test soil aquifer filtration effectiveness • Refine model estimates

Planning Level Costs - Alluvial Aquifer (Source Water) • Vertical Wells (26 to 62 wells)

• Drilling and Construction • Pump Systems

• Lateral Wells (~400 to ~850 feet of pipe) • Installation and Construction • Pump Systems

• Infiltration basin (~0.78 to 2.58 acres) • Construction • Pump Systems

• Conveyance to ASR Wells • Assumes similar distance as surface storage

PresenterPresentation NotesVertical wells Costing for conveyance is 4.5 miles (from surface storage) (range includes 12-inch diameter and scaled down to reflect smaller diameter pipe)Pumps – assume $5-15K per pump system for range of wells

Lateral -

Infiltration basins - $230K to 780K for

Planning Level Costs - Basalt Wells (Storage) • Deep Basalt Wells

• Assumes 3 wells; total depth 800-1,000 feet • Drilling, Construction, Pump Station

• Conveyance • Uses same conveyance as from Alluvial to ASR

PresenterPresentation NotesTotal ballpark estimate : $4 – 9 million

Total for laterals + basalt:

Total for infiltration + basalt:

Wide range reflects unknowns of alluvial system

Summary of Findings and Next Steps No Fatal Flaws identified: • Water Availability Analysis • Regulatory Feasibility • Conservation and Alternatives Means of Supplying Water • Ecological Flow Analysis • Infrastructure Evaluation

Hydrogeologic Feasibility – More evaluation needed (Phase 2) • Alluvial aquifer collection rates estimated – need to verify • Alluvial aquifer treatment alternative cost summary

PresenterPresentation NotesEstimate potential alluvial aquifer collection rates from:Estimated KsatEstimated saturated depthEstimated drawdownEstimate alluvial aquifer treatment alternative costs from:Estimated alluvial aquifer collection ratesInfrastructure costs

KEY UNCERTAINTIES

Phase 2 (Test of Concept)

• Evaluate feasibility of diversion and treatment alternatives

• Field program including test pits, monitoring well installation and testing

• Bracket potential hydraulic properties of potential storage aquifers

• Basalt well hydrogeologic data collection (pumping tests, historical data)

PresenterPresentation Notesdrill and test shallow sedimentary deposits in proximity to creek at two or three locations – Locations to be determined by geologic assessment, senior water rights for exchange, or available infrastructure (basalt wells)

Test one or two deep (Grande Ronde Basalt) production wells in area to confirm boundary conditions and assess hydraulic characteristics to evaluate storage potential

Field Characterization • Phased approach

• Test pits/geologic logging • Boreholes/piezometers in optimal locations

(determined from test pits) • In-situ testing of alluvial aquifer

• Material permeability • Alluvial aquifer production • Alluvial aquifer / stream connectivity • Filtration effectiveness

• Basalt aquifer characterization

PresenterPresentation NotesTest pits: to characterize near-surface sediments and shallow alluvial aquifer (15 ft bgs)

Basalt characterization if the results from the alluvial characterization are favorable

Field Characterization • Phased approach

• Test pits/geologic logging to characterize near-surface sediments and shallow alluvial aquifer (15 ft bgs)

• Boreholes/piezometers in optimal locations (determined from test pits)

• In-situ testing to determine • Material permeability • Alluvial aquifer production • Alluvial aquifer / stream connectivity • Filtration effectiveness

If approved, field program to commence Fall/Winter 2017

Questions?

Contact Information Walter Burt – wburt@gsiws.com (971) 200-8508 Jason Melady – jmelady@gsiws.com (971) 200-8526 Jason Keller – jkeller@gsanalysis.com (541) 399-3399 Brett Moore – bmoore@andersonperry.com (541) 963-8309

PresenterPresentation Notes

J

mailto:wburt@gsiws.commailto:jmelady@gsiws.commailto:jkeller@gsanalysis.commailto:bmoore@andersonperry.com

Previous Work – Surface Storage

Orchard Ridge Ditch Diversion

PresenterPresentation NotesConcept:Divert water during the winter through the Orchard Ridge Ditch to one of three potential surface water storage facilitiesStored water would be piped to irrigators in the lower valley for use in exchange for leaving surface water in-stream1,900 AF based on water availabilityEstimated $13 Million in capital costs

Subsurface Storage Feasibility Study�Phase 1 FindingsSubsurface Storage ConceptPhase 1Water AvailabilityWater AvailabilityPermitting FrameworkWater AvailabilityPermitting FrameworkPermitting FrameworkConservation and Alternatives EvaluationPreliminary Environmental AssessmentPreliminary Environmental AssessmentInfrastructurePhysical FeasibilityGrande Ronde Basalt WellsProject ConceptDiversion and TreatmentLaterals/Recharge BasinRecharge Basin - InflowRecharge BasinsSoil UnitsEstimated Depth to BedrockAlluvial Aquifer Collection Rate Analysis – Recharge RatesAlluvial Aquifer DrawdownAlluvial Aquifer Collection Rates Vertical WellSlide Number 26Slide Number 27Summary of Alluvial Aquifer Collection FeasibilityPlanning Level Costs - Alluvial Aquifer (Source Water)Planning Level Costs - Basalt Wells (Storage)Summary of Findings and Next StepsPhase 2 (Test of Concept)Field CharacterizationField CharacterizationIf approved, field program to commence Fall/Winter 2017Contact InformationPrevious Work – Surface Storage