FY07-09 proposal 200702000

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleManastash Instream Flow Enhancement
Proposal ID200702000
OrganizationKittitas County Conservation District
Short descriptionThis proposal seeks to enhance instream flow by working with water users to implement irrigation conveyance and onfarm water use efficiency projects, to trust water to the creek and investigate diversion timing to assist steelhead migration.
Information transferThe KCCD maintains a website for the Manastash Project; information will be shared with the project steering committee (including WDFW, Ecology, BPA, YN); and updates provided to elected officials, and natural resource managers.
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Form submitter
Anna Lael Kittitas County Conservation District a-lael@wa.nacdnet.org
All assigned contacts
Anna Lael Kittitas County Conservation District a-lael@wa.nacdnet.org

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Yakima

47012'44 120 67'55 Manastash Creek Lower 5 miles of Manastash Creek, right bank tributary to the Yakima River at RM

Section 3. Focal species

primary: Steelhead Middle Columbia River ESU
secondary: Bull Trout
secondary: Rainbow Trout

Section 4. Past accomplishments


Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Funding sourceRelated IDRelated titleRelationship
BPA 200300100 Manastash Cr Fish Passage/Scre This proposal is an extension of passage and screening effort and implements phase 2 to increase instream flow.
Other: NRCS-EQIP [no entry] Environmental Quality Incentives Program The Manastash Project will work with NRCS to fund appropriate conveyance and onfarm irrigation enhancements.
Other: WCC [no entry] Irrigation Efficiencies Program The Manastash Project will work with the WA Conservation Commission through the KCCD to fund irrigation efficiency projects.
Other: WA Ecology [no entry] Conveyance Infrastructure Enhancements The Manastash Project will work with Ecology to fund irrigation conveyance enhancements.
Other: WWT [no entry] Trusting Water to Instream Flow The Manastash Project will work with the Washington Water Trust to purchase or lease water to remain instream.
Other: State Ecology Manastash Restoration Project The KCCD has a contract with Ecology for a total $2.24 million for the Manastash Restoration Project. There funds were appropriated by the WA Legislature specifically to work on screening and passage on Manastash Creek.

Section 6. Biological objectives

Biological objectivesFull descriptionAssociated subbasin planStrategy
Enhance Instream Flow Work with adjudicated water right holders to implement irrigation efficiency projects, facilitate the purchase or lease of surface water rights and to consider surface to ground water conversions. Yakima Increase instream flow. Also cited in YS Recovery Plan, Limiting Habitat Factors
Pulse Stream Flow Explore the feasibility and biological benefits of bypassing a pulse of water passed diversions during the steelhead migration. Yakima This was suggested by WDFW to accomodate steelhead migration during critical period.

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Work element nameWork element titleDescriptionStart dateEnd dateEst budget
Manage and Administer Projects Manage and Administer Project KCCD personnel, benefits, mileage, overhead to conduct this project 1/1/2007 9/30/2009 $93,960
Biological objectives
Enhance Instream Flow
Pulse Stream Flow
Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation Environmental Permitting Work with BPA staff to complete any necessary permitting associated with the installation of pipelines, sprinkler systems or wells, including NEPA compliance 1/1/2007 9/30/2009 $30,000
Biological objectives
Enhance Instream Flow
Produce Design and/or Specifications Engineering and Design of pipelines, wells, or on-farm systems Produced design and specification packages for pipelines, wells, or on-farm irrigation systems. 1/1/2007 9/30/2009 $150,000
Biological objectives
Install Pipeline Pipe water from diversion headworks to place of use to conserve water Install pipeline from irrigation diversion to place of use for several diversions. Saved water to be trusted to stream. 10/1/2007 9/30/2009 $350,000
Biological objectives
Enhance Instream Flow
* Estimated # of miles of primary stream reach improvement: 3 miles
* Estimated # of miles of total stream reach improvement: 5 miles
Install Sprinkler Install on-farm irrigation water use efficiency projects to conserve water Design and install on-farm water use efficiency upgrades, including pumping, use of gravity pressure, and various forms of sprinkling (circle, lateral move, wheel line). 10/1/2007 9/30/2009 $85,000
Biological objectives
Enhance Instream Flow
* Estimated # of miles of primary stream reach improvement: 3 miles
* Estimated # of miles of total stream reach improvement: 5 miles
Install Well Convert surface water right to ground water right withdrawal To maintain instream flow by seasonally or partial converting surface water right for irrigation/stockwater to groundwater. 1/1/2007 9/30/2009 $135,000
Biological objectives
Enhance Instream Flow
Produce Plan Produce Plan to Test Pulse Flow Utility Work together with WDFW biologists to produce a plan to test the pulse flow options in order to determine the viability and biological benefit. 1/1/2007 3/30/2007 $12,000
Biological objectives
Pulse Stream Flow
Other Implement the Plan to Test the Pulse Flow of Water for Upstream Steelhead Migration Work with irrigators to test feasibility and biological benefit of temporarily bypassing water (reducing diversion) to provide instream flow for steelhead migrating upstream (~ June). 4/1/2007 9/30/2009 $35,000
Biological objectives
Pulse Stream Flow
Coordination Coordinate with Water Trust Organizations Facilitate coordination between irrigators and organizations (e.g. Washington Rivers Conservancy or Washington Water Trust) able to purchase or lease of water for instream flow. 1/1/2007 9/30/2009 $25,000
Biological objectives
Enhance Instream Flow

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget
Personnel KCCD staff, partial FTE $25,000 $25,000 $25,000
Fringe Benefits KCCD staff $6,750 $6,750 $6,750
Supplies KCCD supplies $4,000 $2,000 $2,000
Travel KCCD travel $350 $350 $250
Overhead KCCD overhead $20,280 $22,430 $19,050
Other Engineering, design $80,000 $45,000 $25,000
Other Contracted construction $150,000 $230,000 $190,000
Other Professional services $12,500 $12,500 $5,000
Totals $298,880 $344,030 $273,050
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
Total itemized budget: $915,960
Total work element budget: $915,960
Cost sharing
Funding source/orgItem or service providedFY 07 est value ($)FY 08 est value ($)FY 09 est value ($)Cash or in-kind?Status
Ecology Water Infrastructure $250,000 $0 $0 Cash Under Development
NRCS EQIP $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 In-Kind Under Review
WCC Irrigation Efficiencies $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 In-Kind Under Review
Totals $550,000 $300,000 $300,000

Section 9. Project future

FY 2010 estimated budget: $25,000
FY 2011 estimated budget: $25,000
Comments: O/M on installed upgrades, troubleshooting

Future O&M costs: Estimated ongoing O/M needs for installed pipelines and irrigations systems: $35,000.

Termination date: 2022
Comments: Irrigators will operate and maintain water use efficiency upgrades for their useful life per cost share contracts (~15 years). Water leased for instream flow will be managed according to agreement(s) as will any purchased water. Operation of facilities will be according to agreement(s).

Final deliverables: If requested, a report on function and benefits of water conveyance and irrigation efficiency infrastructure, pulse flow feasibility and function, and trusted water.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

[Attached Document] Jul 2006
[Attached Document] Jul 2006

Reviews and recommendations

FY07 budget FY08 budget FY09 budget Total budget Type Category Recommendation
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs]
$0 $0 $0 $0 Capital ProvinceCapital Under Review
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs]
$297,666 $297,666 $297,666 $892,998 Expense ProvinceExpense Fund
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs]
$297,666 $297,666 $297,666 $0 ProvinceExpense
Comments: ISRP not fundable (qualified): habitat m&e programmatic issue. See decision memo discussion. Fund from the Water/land brokerage if possible. If it does get funded through the water/land brokerage, then funding should go to 200300100.


Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: There are not enough details in the proposal to adequately justify the actions. At the very least, the proposal needs to describe approximately how much water will be conserved, and what, specifically, the benefits to fish and other aquatic resources will be. The proposal is aligned with the subbasin plan and addresses a critical habitat issue in a location that is significant to a listed Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU). The response should include more justification for the project, and the monitoring component should be more fully described. The pulse flow concept should be approached as a testable hypothesis and an experiment designed to assess its effectiveness. If this project were to be funded with the objective of improving flow for mid-Columbia steelhead then water saved by conservation measures should actually be trusted to instream flow, not considered for trusting to instream flow. The response should contain assurance that the water saved will be reserved for instream flows and not revert to others with junior water rights. The description of potential benefits for steelhead should include additional details about upstream habitat. Some specific information on the miles of upstream habitat made available with the improved flow, the quality of this habitat, and any plans to enhance or restore upstream habitat should be included. As the primary purpose of augmenting flow is to increase upstream passage of steelhead, the number of adult steelhead reaching the upper watershed should be monitored. Water quality parameters may be influenced by the flow changes and can affect passage of fish; therefore, there should be some water quality monitoring. There also should be an experiment designed to assess the utility of the pulse flows for passing fish. This proposal was a companion proposal to project 200300100 - a diversion screening project for the same area. To what extent do achieving substantial benefits to fish depend upon both issues (screening and flow enhancement) being addressed?

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Not fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: The link with project 200300100 is made clearer in the response and the sequential nature of the two efforts (screening followed by flow enhancement) makes sense, but when this proposal and project 200300100 are considered together the ISRP maintains its concern that the projected benefits to the target fish species of the irrigation diversion screening and the experimental flow pulse are inadequately monitored. Therefore, this proposal is ranked Not Fundable because of its weak monitoring and evaluation section; however, the proposal does rate a "Qualified" because adding flow, removing barriers, and screening diversions are all actions that have the potential to be beneficial to fish populations. We encourage the project sponsors to re-submit the two proposals (next time combined) with a stronger biological monitoring component at the next solicitation. The response addressed some of the ISRP's questions and project sponsors have demonstrated a willingness to alter their proposal in a beneficial way. In particular, their willingness to approach the flow pulse as an experiment is worthwhile, although the revision provides no more specific details about how the experiment would be conducted than the original proposal (e.g., what would be the control situation?). Actual experimental design is left to future planning. Assurances that that the conserved water would be dedicated to increasing stream flow is a critical item that was not well described in the initial proposal but was made clear in the response. There was a good faith effort to estimate the surface flow savings for Manastash Creek, although admittedly the estimate was somewhat crude. It was helpful that the project sponsors stated all additional flow would be dedicated to the WDOE's water trust program. The response does describe water quality monitoring, but it does not address the ISRP's strong suggestion that steelhead use of the watershed be studied in order to help evaluate the pulse flow treatment. We believe this should be a critical part of the work and encourage the sponsors to work with other stakeholders to ensure that an effective steelhead monitoring program is formulated. Although we do not recommend the project for funding at this time, we believe it can be successfully accomplished as an adaptive management experiment with clear treatments and controls coupled with development of an adequate biological monitoring effort.