Local or MSRT Comments: See Washington guidance

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.

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?