This is a digital document from the collections of the Wyoming Water Resources Data System (WRDS) Library.

Transcription

1 This is a digital document from the collections of the Wyoming Water Resources Data System (WRDS) Library. For additional information about this document and the document conversion process, please contact WRDS at wrds@uwyo.edu and include the phrase Digital Documents in your subject heading. To view other documents please visit the WRDS Library online at: Mailing Address: Water Resources Data System University of Wyoming, Dept E University Avenue Laramie, WY Physical Address: Wyoming Hall, Room 249 University of Wyoming Laramie, WY Phone: (307) Fax: (307) Funding for WRDS and the creation of this electronic document was provided by the Wyoming Water Development Commission (

2

3 PURPOSE Wyoming Water Development Commission contracted with Engineering Associates in 2008 to review the rehabilitation needs of the Cody Canal Irrigation District and update the existing GIS model. The scope of this study included updating the rehabilitation schedule for major improvements identified by Cody Canal Irrigation District (Cody Canal or CCID), updating construction costs, surveying and inventorying irrigation features, evaluating nine automation sites, creating a GIS search tool and providing updated map books. Cody Canal Irrigation District The Cody Canal Irrigation District (Cody Canal) is located near Cody, in Park County, Wyoming. The Cody Canal system diverts water directly from the South Fork of the Shoshone River approximately 2 miles upstream of the Buffalo Bill Reservoir. The lands that receive water through the Cody Canal extend from the location of the head gate, northeast to the City of Cody, and then east along Highway 14 until it bends north to the Shoshone River. The system spans 12,500 acres and has 24 miles of Main Canal and 116 miles of Laterals. Picture 1 Main Head Gate & Spill to River Cody Canal currently assesses 2,096 entities, including the City of Cody. The 11,433 acres within Cody Canal is broken into approximately 2,900 parcels of land. Approximately eighty-five (85) percent of the entities own parcels of land less than five acres in size. Parcels of land that have less than five acres of water rights are assessed five (5) units. Larger parcels of land have an assessment unit equal to the number of water right acreages. The summation of the assessment units within Cody Canal is 18,274 units. 1

4 Ninety-five percent of the water in Cody Canal have Priority Dates that extend back to The remaining five percent of water rights have Priority Dates that range between 1913 and Due to the close proximity to the City of Cody, Cody Canal has experienced a tremendous amount of change through the years as land has been subdivided and incorporated into the Cody city limits. During the study, the information presented in the Wyoming Water Development Commission & Cody Canal Irrigation District; Rehabilitation and Hydropower Level II Study submitted by Aqua Engineering, Inc., in May 2006 was utilized. Rehabilitation Needs Cody Canal identified nineteen structures in need of rehabilitation over the next nine years. The structures were previously surveyed and photographed in Construction costs were developed based on the current construction costs in the area. Mapping and GIS Survey information and photographs were inserted into the GIS along with aerial photos, Park County roads, and land ownership information. In addition, data available on water right maps were referenced into the GIS model. Cody Canal provided GIS data to identify the lands irrigated by the main headgates within their system. A search tool has been created to help Cody Canal easily update and utilize their GIS system. Automation Analysis Nine sites were identified by Cody Canal as possible automation sites. Currently, Cody Canal does not have a radio system or automation devices within their system. Cody Canal receives water directly from the river, and as river levels change throughout each day, the flows entering the Cody Canal system fluctuate. Automation would allow Cody Canal to minimize excess water and maximize water efficiency within their system. 2

5 FINDINGS Rehabilitation Needs A review of the Cody Canal System revealed nineteen (19) major structures that were in need of repair in the course of the following nine (9) years. It was determined each structure should be evaluated based on four criteria. The criteria have equal weight and were ranked on a scale of 1 to 5. The four criteria are not listed in any specific order of relevance. Table 1 Rehabilitation Priority shows the prioritization system. Newton Avenue Chute & 19th St. Headgate and Pipeline Glory Hole Drop Diamond Creek check Lower Sage Drop Beck Lake Headgate Musser Check Lewis Check Holm Lateral Sage Creek Spill & Ross Headgate Bluher Check & Drop (Ross ditch) Lower Sage Creek Spill (Dry Creek) Mann check Sage Creek Spill (Lower Sage Creek) City Check Wagler Check Buchanan Check Main Parshall Flume Sunburst Check Callen Check Effect on canal system if structure failed. Acres affected by failure. Overall Importance to System Performance Total Condition of structure Final Rank * Replacement Year Rate on a scale 1-5 Affect on system if structure failed: 1 - total system shutdown, 5 - system not impacted Acres Affected: 1 - many acres impacted, 5 - minimal amount of acres impacted Overall Importance to System Performance: 1 - important 5 - less important Condition of : 1-very poor condition with a high chance of failure, 5-in need of repair but lowest chance of failure * Replacement Schedule for structures that had the same total were given the assigned rank by CCID based on their knowledge of their system. Table 1 Rehabilitation Priority 3

6 Rehabilitation Cost Estimates The conceptual designs presented in the May 2006 report were appropriate for the structures. The structures identified for replacement need to be replaced due to failing concrete. The costs for the structures were updated to reflect the construction costs Cody Canal (CCID) has encountered since the May 2006 study. The costs are summarized in Table 2 WWDC Replacement Costs. Newton Avenue Chute & 19 th Street Headgate and Pipeline ,181 $ 200,900 Bid 33% $ 66,300 $ 134,600 Glory Hole Drop ,259 $ 190,000 Bid 33% $ 62,700 $ 127,300 Glory Hole Drop ,215 $ 190,000 District 59% $ 111,300 $ 78,700 Diamond Creek Check ,813 $ 69,400 District 51% $ 35,100 $ 34,300 Lower Sage Drop ,138 $ 64,100 Bid 33% $ 21,150 $ 42,950 Beck Lake Headgate ,881 $ 30,800 District 55% $ 16,800 $ 14,000 Musser Check ,673 $ 42,600 District 56% $ 23,900 $ 18,700 Lewis Check ,300 $ 69,900 District 56% $ 35,200 $ 34,700 Holm Lateral ,445 $ 100,100 District 49% $ 49,100 $ 51,000 Sage Creek Spill & Ross Headgate ,395 $ 259,400 Bid 33% $ 85,600 $ 173,800 Bluher Check & Drop (Ross ditch) ,533 $ 28,700 District 55% $ 15,800 $ 12,900 Lower Sage Creek Spill (Dry Creek) ,330 $ 78,300 Bid 33% $ 25,840 $ 52,460 Mann check ,813 $ 80,300 District 51% $ 40,600 $ 39,700 Sage Creek Spill (Lower Sage Creek) ,735 $ 117,600 District 53% $ 61,800 $ 55,800 City Check ,954 $ 76,400 District 52% $ 39,400 $ 37,000 Wagler Check ,813 $ 88,400 District 51% $ 44,700 $ 43,700 Buchanan Check ,275 $ 77,900 District 52% $ 40,600 $ 37,300 Main Parshall Flume ,061 $ 207,100 District 59% $ 121,200 $ 85,900 Sunburst Check ,813 $ 92,900 District 51% $ 47,000 $ 45,900 Callen Check ,813 $ 97,500 District 51% $ 49,300 $ 48,200 Replacement Year 2009 Project Cost Cost at Year of Construction District or Bid Percentage Table 2 WWDC Replacement Costs WWDC Assistance A loan analysis was performed on the projects Cody Canal could receive WWDC loan assistance. Cody Canal requested a 30-term be utilized at the 4% APR interest rate indicated by WWDC. To distribute the Operation and Maintenance expense of Cody Canal over the acreages within the district, the annual debt service per assessed unit was calculated. The summation of the assessment units is 18,274 units. The total acreage served by the assessment units is 11,433 acres. This will help Cody Canal to correlate the annual debt service to their billing procedure. 4

7 Table 3 WWDC Loan Funding Assistance found on the following page, summarizes the funding assistance available through WWDC on projects Cody Canal would like to bid to contractors for construction. Newton Avenue Drop & 19th Street Headgate and Pipeline ,181 $ 200,900 Bid 33% $ 66,300 $ 134,600 $ (3,834) $ (0.210) Glory Hole Drop ,259 $ 190,000 Bid 33% $ 62,700 $ 127,300 $ (3,626) $ (0.198) Lower Sage Drop ,138 $ 64,100 Bid 33% $ 21,150 $ 42,950 $ (1,223) $ (0.067) Sage Creek Spill & Ross Headgate ,395 $ 259,400 Bid 33% $ 85,600 $ 173,800 $ (4,950) $ (0.271) Lower Sage Creek Spill (Dry Creek) ,330 $ 78,300 Bid 33% $ 25,840 $ 52,460 $ (1,494) $ (0.082) Replacement Year 2009 Project Cost Cost at Year of Construction District or Bid *Captial Recovery Factor for 4% APR on a 30 year loan is **Annual Debt Service Per Acre Is Based On 18,274 Asessed Units. (11,433 Acres) Percentage CCID Loan Responsibility WWDC Grant Annual Debt Service* Annual Debt Service Per Assessed Unit** Table 3 WWDC Loan Funding Assistance Automation Nine sites were identified by Cody Canal as potential automation sites that would increase the operating efficiency of the district. To achieve automation of their system, two-way radio telemetry would be setup and a base station would be placed at the Cody Canal shop. Based on the radio frequency analysis, a repeater will need to be placed on the Cedar Mountain Tower. Prior to the implementation of the radio system, Cody Canal would need to receive the approval of a radio frequency band width by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). To secure their approval, Cody Canal will require a federal sponsor such as the National Weather Service, Bureau of Reclamation or the U.S. Geological Survey. In addition, a field study should be performed to confirm the results of the study prior to implementation of the system. Implementation and Costs It is proposed to install automation at the Holm Lateral Headgate and the Sage Creek Spill at the time the structures are reconstructed and the construction costs for the structures reflect automation improvements. The remaining automation sites were grouped into three phases for WWDC funding applications. 5

8 Phase One consists of the automation components: Automation equipment and a gate in one bay of the Main Head Gate. Setup the Base Station at the CCID Shop Install a Repeater on Cedar Mountain Phase Two consists of automating the following sites: Diamond Creek Spill Sulphur Creek Spill Town Lateral Headgate Phase Three consists of automating the following sites: Kauffman Spill Lower Sage Headgate Lower Sage Spill Headgate As part of the grant match, Cody Canal would be responsible for the installation costs of the electronic components of the systems by qualified personnel. Table 4 Automation Cost Summary, briefly summarizes the automation costs for WWDC loans and grants. Automation Phase ,362 $ 123,200 Bid 33% $ 40,660 $ 82,540 Automation Phase ,677 $ 227,400 Bid 33% $ 75,040 $ 152,360 Automation Phase ,092 $ 303,200 Bid 33% $ 100,060 $ 203,140 Automation Phase ,597 $ 130,400 District 64% $ 83,460 $ 46,940 Automation Phase ,080 $ 236,000 District 60% $ 141,600 $ 94,400 Automation Phase ,495 $ 313,600 District 54% $ 169,340 $ 144,260 Installation Year 2009 Project Cost Cost at Year of Construction District or Bid Percentage WWDC Assistance Table 4 Automation Cost Summary Table 5 Automation Loan Recovery Costs, summaries the loan recovery costs based on a 30 year term at 4% interest for 18,274 assessed units. Automation Phase ,362 $ 123,200 Bid 33% $ 40,660 $ 82,540 $ (2,351) $ (0.129) Automation Phase ,677 $ 227,400 Bid 33% $ 75,040 $ 152,360 $ (4,340) $ (0.237) Automation Phase ,092 $ 303,200 Bid 33% $ 100,060 $ 203,140 $ (5,786) $ (0.317) Installation Year 2009 Project Cost Cost at Year of Construction District or Bid *Captial Recovery Factor for 4% APR on a 30 year loan is **Annual Debt Service Per Acre Is Based On 18,274 Asessed Units. (11,433 Acres) Percentage CCID Loan Responsibility WWDC Grant Annual Debt Service* Annual Debt Service Per Assessed Unit** 6

9 MAPPING & GIS GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM The existing Geographical Information System (GIS) model developed in 2006 was enhanced to become a powerful tool for Cody Canal. The following items were incorporated into the existing model: additional system components, water right permit information, lands served by critical headgates, assessment role information, and a powerful search tool. All the structures within the GIS model were renamed based on a revised naming convention. The structure names now include a distance measurement along the canal or lateral. Pictures were taken of each structure and the photographs are accessible through the use of the GIS Search Tool. The most current water right maps created by Tom Flack, during the Big Horn River Adjudication for the Wyoming State Engineer s Office, were added to the GIS System. Through the efforts of Mr. Bales, Cody Canal Manager, the headgate service area feature class was created within the GIS model and incorporated into the Study. By using the headgate service area and water right information spatially, Cody Canal has a powerful tool to easily access the necessary information they need to regulate irrigation flows within their system. The 2009 Park County GIS Land Ownership feature class was purchased from Park County to incorporate into the GIS model and provided the spatial information necessary to link the Cody Canal assessment role to the land ownership. Cody Canal has a Microsoft Excel list of all the assessed water users within the district which is updated annually. Unfortunately, the Excel file did not have a specific connection to the Park County Assessor s tax payer identification number. To create a connection, a cross-analysis of the CCID assessment and the Park County Land Ownership information was completed. The Irrigation Geodatabase Tool (IGT) Version 2.2 is a suite of utilities developed by Anderson Consulting Engineers (ACE) to facilitate completion of complex tasks by even the novice user. These tools were enhanced with new features and functionality during the completion of this project. All tools customized and developed by ACE were created using Microsoft Visual Basic (Version 6.3) within the ArcView GIS environment. Consequently, they can only be accessed from within the project GIS. The search tool was customized during this study by ACE to allow Cody Canal to identify land ownership based on water right permit dates. The search tool s ease of use and functionality can make the difference between a GIS model being a simple and static snapshot in time of a district or a dynamic management tool serving the district manager into the future. To facilitate the ability of Cody Canal to update the GIS model, a draft Developer s Application was created. The Developer s Application requires developers to provide Cody Canal specific electronic information and pay for the costs encountered by CCID to maintain the GIS model. The proposed fee schedule requires a base fee and an additional cost per lot. The electronic information requested should readily be available from the engineer hired by the developer. In addition, the items are typically on the Water Distribution Map required by the State Engineer s Office or on the electronic file required by Park County Planning and Zoning. It was decided it was in the best interest of the developer to provide the electronic information at the time of development. Thus, Cody Canal would not need to hire an engineer to provide the information and back charge the developer at a later date. 7