Nevada Division of Environmental Protection - Office of Financial Assistance

Metropolis Irrigation Restoration Project

BACKGROUND

Historical account from the Humboldt River Chronology - Nevada River Chronology Publication Series - Part 1 Overview

Ten miles downstream from its beginning at Wells, the Humboldt River (Humboldt River flow schematic ) receives the inflows of Bishop Creek flowing into the river from the northeast. On an interesting historical note, fourteen miles up Bishop Creek is the Bishop Creek Reservoir, which was the site of an ambitious colonization and reclamation project in 1910 when The Pacific Reclamation Company purchased approximately 40,000 acres of land at the mouth of Bishop Creek (Emigration) Canyon. By 1912 the company had constructed the present earth-rock fill dam on Bishop Creek with a storage capacity of 30,000 acre-feet, and a diversion canal with the intention of irrigating 30,000 acres of land. In the flats below the reservoir, a town named Metropolis was built, along with a $100,000 brick hotel, a brick school (Lincoln School), electric lights and city parks. By 1914 the population in the area had grown to almost 1,000 persons. Beginning in 1912, however, problems with water rights on Bishop, Burnt and Trout creeks had dramatically reduced available irrigable lands to only 3,000 acres. Attempts at dryland farming, the first time this had been tried on any significant scale in Nevada, proved disastrous. By 1924 the population of Metropolis had shrunk to only 200 persons and subsequent droughts and the depression era of the 1930’s eventually finished off the town. Today, only scattered ruins of the town remain32 and the Bishop Creek Reservoir (sometimes still referred to as Metropolis Reservoir) is now not even able to hold water due to cracks in the dam.

The Bishop Creek Dam served as a viable component of the original irrigation project for 30 years. In May 1943, the State Engineer imposed a water gauge height limitation on the structure of 55 feet. A dam safety inspection was prepared by the Corps of Engineers for the structure in May 1979 as part of the National Program for Inspection of Dams. The dam was classified as intermediate in size (80 feet high) with a "high hazard" classification. The dam was described as an "unsafe structure" as a result of the dam safety inspection in 1979 and it was recommended that the dam not be filled above the level previously recommended by the State Engineer. Because of the lack of storage, the facility eventually ceased to be a viable for the irrigation project. The dam continued to function as a flood control structure, in that it detained the peak runoff during storm events.

The outlet gate became bound and inoperable, partially open, early in 1984 because of limited used and deterioration. With the gate partially open, the runoff events of 1984 ponded water to a depth of about 57 feet. As a result, the dam developed a leak through the embankment. The primary area of the leak was at a height of about 42 feet. The dam eventually drained down without catastrophic failure.

The water delivery system is more than 90 years old. It has exceeded its useful design life. All concrete structures associated with it have experienced excessive weathering. Portions of the canal system never have water in them and, as a result, they have not been maintained. The existing system would not be capable of handling the available water if the dam were functioning and releasing water. It appears that the present system is not capable of delivering the quantity of water for which there are water rights.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

In 2005, the Metropolis Water Irrigation District submitted a Letter of Intent to apply for a grant under the Capital Improvements Grant Program to assist with an irrigation system improvement project . The scope of the complete project includes a new dam and irrigation conveyance system improvements. The Board for Financing Water Projects approved proceeding to the grant application with six conditions:
1. Metropolis Irrigation District should apply for the grant in two phases: Phase 1 for engineering and permitting and Phase 2 for construction. The applicant will not apply for a Phase 2 grant until permitting is complete;
2. Before applying for a grant for the engineering and permitting phase, the Metropolis Water Irrigation district must have their "match funding" in place;
3. Before applying for a grant for the construction phase, the Metropolis Water Irrigation district must have their "match funding" in place or supply details on how they plan to use in-kind labor for the match;
4. Before applying for a grant for the construction phase, the Metropolis Water Irrigation District must have established a water rate for their irrigation water that is sufficient to pay for the operation and continued maintenance of and capital replacement fund (depreciation account) for the irrigation system;
5. Metropolis Water Irrigation District must apply for a grant for Phase 1 engineering and permitting within one year of the approval of this Letter of Intent;
6. The project must be given approval by the Division of Water Resources Dam Safety

PROJECT STATUS

The Metropolis Water Irrigation District applied for a grant from the Capital Improvements Grant Program for Phase 1 - engineering and permitting. The grant was approved by the Board for Financing Water Projects on January 25, 2006, for $489,467.40 (85% of the total eligible project cost of $575,844).

The scope of Phase 1 of the project includes:

the final design of the earthfill Bishop Creek embankment dam, including the associated spillway, foundation treatment, and construction drawings and specifications; and the final drilling program to refine the foundation design
the final design of the diversion and conveyance structures for irrigation restoration
the design of the ~6.5-mile construction access road to the dam site
necessary permitting, easements, etc., to proceed to construction

Engineering design and permitting are currently in progress. Staff included the general items related to this project that the Board and staff consider outstanding in the Staff Report to the Board at the September 10, 2009, Board meeting . These items include the following and are updated as new information becomes available:

Dam construction approval from the Division of Water Resources and clarification of water rights. The design was reviewed by the Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR). NDWR approved the design of the new dam on January 7, 2010 (View the NDWR Dam Construction Approval ). After construction is completed, NDWR requires that a request to impound be submitted along with record drawings, an emergency action plan, and operations and maintenance plans for all facets of both the diversion and storage dams. Water may not be impounded behind the structure prior to receipt of the Approval to Impound from NDWR. Plans and specifications for the extension of the access road to the dam site must be submitted and approved by the State Engineer no less than 30 days prior to construction. In addition, NDWR noted that their approval does not waive the necessity of obtaining other required permits from any applicable Federal, State or local agencies.

The District noted in their letter dated February 22, 2008 that the Pacific Reclamation Water Company has the certificated permits for water on Bishop Creek. It appears from the Summary of Ownership/Abstract of Title provided by NDWR that the Metropolis Water Irrigation District received title to the storage water rights under permits 1000 and 1807 from the Pacific Reclamation Company through the Metropolis Land Company.

Permits, easements, rights-of-way, etc., as required by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and others for removal of the old dam, construction of the new dam and construction of the recreation facilities.

A Programmatic Agreement between the Bureau of Land Management Elko District, US Army Corps of Engineers, Nevada State Historic Preservation Office, and Metropolis Water Irrigation District was signed in Spring 2008.

While the BLM's predecessor, the General Land Office (GLO), issued a Right-of-Way (ROW) to the Metropolis Land Company in perpetuity for a reservoir and irrigation ditch system (NVE-0-003351 issued May 23, 1919). The BLM has no record showing a change in ownership or name for the ROW from the Metropolis Land Company to the Metropolis Water Irrigation District.

The BLM has no record of the GLO authorizing the existing dam when it was built circa 1912-1913. Neither the GLO nor the BLM have ever operated the Bishop Creek Dam. It was widely believed for several decades that the Bishop Creek Dam was built on private land, but a re-survey of the area in 1985 determined that the entire infrastructure was built and operated without formal, written authorization (e.g., Right-of-Way Grant, Recreation & Public Purposes (R&PP) Lease, etc.) on public land administered by the BLM. The Metropolis Water Irrigation District must formally apply for a ROW Grant in order to receive a written authorization from the BLM to operate, maintain, and terminate the existing Bishop Creek Dam that is located on Public (Federal) Land. This legal right and responsibility must be initiated with the submission of an SF-299 application to the BLM Elko District, Wells Field Office. By applying for an authorized ROW Grant from the BLM, the Metropolis Water Irrigation District must adequately document in their application that they have the technical and financial capability to construct, operate, maintain, and terminate the system for which the authorization is being requested.

Research provided by the BLM office in Elko indicates the public land upon which the dam sits has been withdrawn by the FERC. This withdrawal was completed in April 2001 and encompasses 200-acres. It is currently shown as withdrawn land based on the application by Wells Rural Electric for feasibility studies in developing a hydroelectric project. The FERC withdrawl (BLM Case File Number NVN-074982) will remain open and the BLM cannot close this case file until FERC vacates the permit which expires on 04/30/2012. As the lead in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, the BLM will provide information to FERC as necessary.

The level of NEPA analysis required to analyze the impacts of a new dam, reservoir, recreation facilities, highway turn-off up-grades, borrow pit, equipment staging area, etc., ("connected actions") will be an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This decision was made jointly by the BLM and USACE and was discussed at the April 20, 2010, Bishop Creek Dam progress meeting held in Elko.

In addition to the dam constuction approval from NDWR, the USACE will require a Section 404 Individual Permit prior to contruction of the dam. This permit cannot be finalized until the EIS process is complete. By federal law every applicant for a federal permit or license for an activity which may result in a discharge into a water body must request State certification that the proposed activity will not violate State and Federal water quality standards. The District is required to file an application to the State for 401 Certification for a Section 404 activity. The Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) also noted that Nation Wide Permits #36 and #42 will be required to build the boat ramp and recreational facilities.

The conveyance structures (canals, turnouts, etc.) located downstream of the dam are still believed to be 100% on private land and could be enhanced/installed with or without the construction of a new dam. As a result, the proposed upgrades to downstream irrigation facilities can be justifiably separated from the remainder of the project. The Metropolis Water Irrigation District has approached the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) for funding for this part of the project. The NRCS will do their own Environmental Assessment and Cultural Resources Inventories. No written confirmation of their participation has been provided to date.

Installation of flow gauges on the inlet and outlet of the reservoir for monitoring purposes. Downstream users holding water rights that are senior to the Metropolis Water Irrigation District have previously expressed concern that flows are inadequate to support irrigation uses and upstream storage, particularly a minimum pool needed for a fishery. The Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) has previously noted a requirement, as a condition of providing recreational facility funding, that gauges be installed to verify the inflow to and outflow from the Bishop Creek Reservoir and the Board for Financing Water Projects strongly agrees with and supports this requirement. There has been discussion over the possibility of an increase in flow since the earthquake in 2008; however, the subsurface hydrology can be difficult to predict. There may be an increase and it may be long term or may be due to only a finite lens of water that the shift in the earth structure is releasing from storage and the flows could diminish at any time. Since permanent, recording gauges have not, yet, been installed and there is no history of the flows into and out of the reservoir, it is a guess as to how much water is flowing today, and future flows are equally as hard to predict.

Commitment of water rights or other mechanism to assure a minimum pool for the creation of a reservoir that may be used for recreation (e.g., boating, fishing, etc.). In a letter dated August 26, 2009, NDOW indicated that a minimum pool to support a fishery would be 20 feet deep, approximately 1,700 acre-feet. NDOW indicated that a binding agreement would be necessary. In a letter dated April 9, 2010, NDOW again confirmed support for the reconstruction of Bishop Creek Dam and stated that it is thought that water quality characteristics at Bishop Creek Reservoir would be conducive to the establishment of a warm-water fishery. NDOW would acquire and stock various species, relying on natural reproduction to expand and maintain the fishery. In addition, NDOW noted that in order to sustain a fishery of this type, water management practices need to be established which would provide adequate habitat to sustain this fishery from year to year. It is assumed that part of the management practices would include the minimum pool discussed in the August 2009 letter from NDOW; however, further clarification of these management practices is necessary at this point.

Obtaining of match funding for the construction of the dam and funding for construction of the recreation facilities. The District has previously stated that NDOW would participate in the funding of a boat ramp, in funding for the dam structure, in a possible fishery and on-going maintenance of the dam. NDOW's specific participation has not, yet, been made firm. The lack of a commitment to a minimum reservoir year-round for the public benefit is of great concern to the Board for Financing Water Projects and its staff. Water in a reservoir during the early spring run-off and a mud hole in the summer after the reservoir has been drawn down for irrigation purposes does not satisfy our understanding of a recreation area.

The District has also made note of possible funding from the Nevada Division of State Parks (State Parks) for hiking trails. A commitment to providing hiking trails and funding from State Parks has not been confirmed. The inclusion of hiking trails in the region extends the area that would be covered in the environmental and cultural assessments that must be made prior to any Record of Decision on the EIS.

When the Board approved funding for the Phase 1 project, they were told that the City of Wells intended to apply for a grant from the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) for engineering design and construction of the road for the dam construction. In addition, Elko County had intended to donate in-kind labor to construct the road with the intent that the City of Wells would have sufficient funds remaining from the NDOT grant to complete the recreational facilities. It is not clear if, in the 4 years since the Capital Improvements grant was approved for engineering and permitting, this funding and in-kind commitment has been secured. It is important that any in-kind services provided be properly documented.

Other sources of potential funding that have been mentioned include federal appropriations.

Demonstration of a revenue source to cover operation and maintenance and to support a capital replacement fund. A grantee of the State Capital Improvements Grant Program must have sufficient financial resources to place the water project into operation and to continue its operation. This is interpreted to mean that the Metropolis Water Irrigation District must continually fund the needed maintenance and capital reserve fund of the dam and the irrigation system. Required maintenance for the irrigation system will include, at a minimum, controlling vegetation on the dam and in the conveyance structures, controlling rodents, keeping trash out of the system, and maintaining the mechanical equipment. The dam should have a useful life of approximately 80 years according to the DWR. The estimated annual operation and maintenance for the project is $60,000 (letter dated February 22, 2008 ). This amount appears to be low. An item that has apparently been overlooked is the USGS stream gauges which have an annual O&M cost of $20,800 each. Staff understands that there will be three of these gauges - one upstream on Bishop Creek (below the confluence with Johnson Creek), a second on Bishop Creek below the dam and a third on the irrigation diversion channel. The USGS may be able to assist with up to 50% of the cost of the gauges and their maintenance on Bishop Creek. No financial assistance would be available for the gauge on the irrigation diversion. If the USGS were able to assist with 50% of the eligible maintenance cost, that would still leave the District with $41,600 for the stream gauges alone.

An entity committed to operating/overseeing the recreation facility and fee collection. In the September 11, 2008, request for a time extension, the Metropolis Water Irrigation District made it clear that it was unable to fund the operation of recreation facilities and had not, yet, identified a definite entity to assume this responsibility. Since that time, Elko County has increased its participation in this project and may assume this responsibility through an R&PP lease from BLM. Any decision on the granting of a lease by the BLM would not occur until a Record of Decision has been reached on the EIS.

Relevant correspondence and proceedings

To see more photos of District and the old Bishop Creek dam, click here and you will be tranferred to the Board's field trip site with photos and narrative of the area.