FY07-09 proposal 200702000
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Manastash Instream Flow Enhancement |
| Proposal ID | 200702000 |
| Organization | Kittitas County Conservation District |
| Short description | This 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 transfer | The 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 | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Anna Lael | Kittitas County Conservation District | [email protected] |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Anna Lael | Kittitas County Conservation District | [email protected] |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Yakima
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 ESUsecondary: Bull Trout
secondary: Rainbow Trout
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est 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 |
Metrics |
||||
| 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 |
Metrics |
||||
| 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 |
Metrics |
||||
| 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 |
Metrics * 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 |
Metrics * 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 |
Metrics |
||||
| 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 |
Metrics |
||||
| 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 |
Metrics |
||||
| 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 |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | $915,960 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | 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. |
||||||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
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.