Final Report

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima River Basin

Yakima Project Washington

Prepared by: HDR Engineering Anchor QEA ESA Adolfson

U.S. Department of the Interior State of Washington Bureau of Reclamation Department of Ecology Pacific Northwest Region Office of Columbia River Columbia-Cascades Area Office December 2009

Mission Statements

The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities.

The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.

The mission of the Department of Ecology is to protect, preserve and enhance Washington’s environment, and promote the wise management of our air, land and water for the benefit of current and future generations

Table of Contents 1 Introduction and Purpose ...... 3 1.1 Previous YRBWEP Activities and More Recent Studies ...... 3 1.2 Workgroup Efforts and Recommendation ...... 4 1.3 Document Organization ...... 7 2 Water Resources Needs in the Yakima Basin...... 7 3 Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan ...... 11 3.1 Preliminary IWRMP Projects and Actions Summary ...... 11 3.1.1 Phase I Projects (Near-term = 0 to 10 Years) ...... 11 3.1.2 Phase II Projects (Mid-term = 11 to 30+ Years) ...... 14 3.2 Preliminary Path Forward and Schedule...... 15 3.3 Benefits ...... 17 3.3.1 Water Supply and Flow Benefits ...... 17 3.3.2 Habitat Benefits ...... 19 3.3.3 Other (Multipurpose) Benefits ...... 20 3.3.4 Sample Scorecard...... 20 3.3.5 Mitigation ...... 21 3.4 Plan Adjustments Based on Need during Implementation ...... 22 3.5 Preliminary Appraisal-Level Costs ...... 22 4 Summary and Schedule of the Yakima River Basin Plan of Study ...... 23 5 References ...... 27

List of Tables

Table 1 Sample Scorecard ...... 20 Table 2 Compilation of Preliminary Implementation Cost Estimates ...... 22

List of Figures

Figure 1 IWRMP Development and Implementation Flowchart ...... 15 Figure 2 Project Schedule ...... 16 Figure 3 Estimated TWSA Benefits during Historical Drought Years in Thousands of Acre-feet (kaf) ...... 17 Figure 4 Estimated Prorated Supply Benefits during Historical Drought Years ...... 17 Figure 5 Estimated Flow Benefits at the Gauge at Parker during Historical Drought Years ...... 18

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page i List of Attachments

Attachment A Tables and Exhibits for the Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Report Attachment B Workgroup Members Attachment C Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan Project Descriptions

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page ii 1 Introduction and Purpose

The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) convened the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project (YRBWEP) 2009 Workgroup to develop a recommendation for advancing a Yakima Basin preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (IWRMP) to restore fisheries and improve water supply in the Yakima basin (see Attachment A, Exhibit 1 for a map of the basin). The Workgroup has developed the general outline of a preliminary IWRMP and narrowed down a list of potential actions for further evaluation and analysis. While some Workgroup members do not support all of the IWRMP elements described below, they do unanimously support further evaluation and analysis of the IWRMP. For Workgroup members, the ultimate decision to support or oppose the IWRMP and its elements depends on the final package assembled, as well as the analysis that supports that package.

The 2009 Workgroup is composed of representatives of the Yakama Nation; Federal, Washington state and local governments; an environmental organization; and irrigation districts. Staff representing the state’s Congressional delegation has also attended to observe Workgroup discussions. All meetings have been open to the public with opportunities for public input. A list of the Workgroup membership and organizations represented is provided in Attachment B.

1.1 Previous YRBWEP Activities and More Recent Studies

The Workgroup activities build on previous state and federal YRBWEP feasibility study activities. YRBWEP was initiated by Congress in 1979 with the following objectives: develop a plan that would provide 1) supplemental water for presently irrigated lands, 2) water for new lands within the Yakama Indian Reservation, 3) water for increased instream flows for aquatic life, and 4) a comprehensive plan for efficient management of basin water supplies.

Initial efforts in the mid-1980s (Phase 1) focused on improving fish passage by rebuilding fish ladders and constructing fish screens at existing diversions. Phase 2 in the 1990s focused on water conservation/water acquisition activities and tributary fish screens, and long-term management needs. Efforts under these earlier phases were hindered by the ongoing uncertainties associated with adjudication of the basin surface waters that began in 1978. With the adjudication process now largely completed, most of these water-right uncertainties have been addressed. Section 1205(a)(6)(c) of Title XII of the Act of October 31, 1994, provides for a third phase of the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project.

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page 3 More recently, additional studies have been conducted to evaluate potential solutions to meet long-term basin water resource needs. In 2003, Reclamation and Ecology initiated the Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study to examine the feasibility and acceptability of storage augmentation in the Yakima River basin. Evaluation of the Black Rock Dam Alternative, along with other storage alternatives, was presented in theYakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study Final Planning Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in December 2008.

Narrowly focused legislation and comments on the Draft Yakima River Basin Storage Feasibility Study Planning Report and Draft EIS (January 2008) prompted Ecology to separate from the federal process. In mid-2008, Ecology1 began a separate evaluation of solutions to the Yakima basin's water supply problems, including consideration of habitat and fish passage needs. This study was completed and a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) issued in June 2009. The FEIS proposed an Integrated Water Resource Management Alternative using a range of water management and habitat improvement approaches comprised of seven major elements to resolve long-standing water resource problems in the basin. The following are the seven elements from the FEIS: reservoir fish passage, structural/operational changes, surface storage, groundwater storage, fish habitat enhancements, enhanced water conservation, and market based reallocation of water resources. This alternative is the framework or outline for the YRBWEP Workgroup’s deliberations and recommendations.

The Workgroup has considered much of the information developed from these 30+ years of studies and evaluations in conducting its work and developing its recommendations. A more complete listing of these sources is provided at the Reclamation website: http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/index.html.

1.2 Workgroup Efforts and Recommendation

The Workgroup has articulated a bold, far-reaching set of potential investments that would affect the entire Yakima Basin. The preliminary IWRMP would:  Be one of the most comprehensive ecological restorations in the United States addressing in stream flows and aquatic habitat restoration and enhancement  Improve supply reliability to irrigators from varied drought effects  Provide an economic stimulus to the Yakima Basin that would benefit the entire Central Washington area

1 Ecology’s authority for this effort derives from Chapter 90.90 RCW where Ecology is directed to aggressively pursue development of new water supplies for both in stream and out of stream uses. Environmental review authority is provided through Chapter 43.21 RCW and Chapter 197-11 WAC, where Ecology has SEPA authority to evaluate alternative actions independent of other agencies.

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page 4  Improve the ability of water managers to respond to climate changes, as the Yakima Basin is heavily dependent on snowpack for meeting in and out of stream water supply needs.

The Workgroup held 12 days of meetings from June through December 2009 to review elements of the preliminary IWRMP and develop their recommendation. The group formed two subcommittees, the fish passage subcommittee and habitat enhancement subcommittee, which met several times to develop recommendations on reservoir fish passage and habitat enhancement actions and projects. Subcommittee input has been incorporated into the Workgroup recommendation.

The Workgroup developed a consensus recommendation as follows: Recommendation to Advance a Preliminary Yakima Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for Further Analysis and Evaluation

The YRBWEP 2009 Workgroup finds that the elements and actions outlined below merit further analysis and evaluation as the Workgroup continues its work to identify a package of actions for a Final IWRMP that would provide water for irrigated agriculture and future municipal needs, and improve habitat for anadromous and resident fish.

Water Supply 1. Programs and policies (e.g., adoption of conservation and efficiency BMPs) to reduce water demand through extensive water conservation and efficiency measures for agricultural and municipal water users, as well as for residential water users not connected to a municipal delivery system. 2. Additional water supply through a suite of at least some of the following actions: Wymer Dam, Cle Elum Dam (Pool Raise), Kachess Reservoir (Inactive Storage), enlarged Bumping Reservoir, and direct pumping from the Columbia River with storage (e.g. Wymer, Burbank and Selah Creek locations). Explore possibilities for additional power generation opportunities. Provide additional analysis of a tributary enhancement project such as the Ahtanum Creek Watershed Restoration Program, including a Pine Hollow Reservoir Project. 3. Groundwater storage including infiltration prior to storage control (or whenever feasible in light of fish and irrigation needs) and municipal aquifer storage and recovery. 4. Market-based reallocation of water rights through a water market and

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page 5 modification of existing laws and regulations, as necessary.

Modifications to Existing Operations 5. Modification of existing facilities and operations including completion of the Wapatox canal piping, subordination of some or all of the Roza and Chandler power plants for fish flows during spring, evaluate Roza diversion alternate supply and associated dam removal, and improvement of the Kittitas Reclamation District canals through measures, including piping, to improve flow in tributaries.

Fish Passage 6. Adult and juvenile fish passage at all six Yakima Project reservoirs

Habitat Enhancement 7. Habitat enhancement program addressing reach-level floodplain restoration priorities and restoring access to key tributaries through flow restoration, removing fish barriers, and screening diversions. Will include analysis and identification of a plan to provide tributary passage for fish and key long-term protections for habitat utilizing federal, state and local legal or policy tools and funding sources to protect important river reaches, potentially in coordination with land and water trusts.

As part of the Yakima River Basin Study 2010 analysis and evaluation (see Section 4), we recommend:  Testing assumptions regarding in and out of stream water needs to be met by an IWRMP. This will be accomplished through a peer-reviewed demand analysis performed by Washington State University in conjunction with a larger analysis they are conducting for Ecology’s Office of Columbia River.  Improving cost estimates for actions receiving further analysis and evaluation. The cost basis for actions should be comparable .  Improving understanding of the joint effects of the various projects alone and in combination with potential packages of actions drawn from other elements receiving further evaluation. Utilize a scorecard to display benefits and costs for all elements in the IWRMP, and identifying least- cost means of achieving the various objectives, and estimating capital and operations and maintenance costs allocated to the responsible parties.  Identify, evaluate, and recommend project mitigation strategies for

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page 6 affected habitats, impacts to operating costs (e.g. power subordination), or other project-specific effects requiring mitigation.

The Workgroup recommends it continue to meet in 2010 at key milestones to provide input as these further evaluations are carried out.

Efforts will continue in 2010 with the Yakima River Basin Study, when more detailed evaluation of the actions and projects in the preliminary IWRMP will be further evaluated, leading to a recommended final IWRMP and implementation approach that will be used to seek authorization and funding. It is expected that during this process recommended projects may be revised or deleted and other projects may be elevated in priority by the Workgroup. The Workgroup identified the following key concepts for promoting a preliminary plan:

 The IWRMP includes benefits for all involved interests.  The final IWRMP should be composed of a package of complementary projects drawn from all seven elements, that in combination provide water supply, flow and habitat benefits.  The IWRMP needs to be adaptable and flexible to accommodate anticipated trends, such as increasing drought, climate change and population growth, as well as unanticipated events.  The IWRMP needs to address funding, including local participation.

1.3 Document Organization

The remainder of this document is organized as follows:  Section 2 summarizes the water resources problems that prompted development of the preliminary IWRMP.  Section 3 describes the IWRMP as currently envisioned: project summaries; water supply, flow, habitat and other benefits; adaptive management considerations; and available cost information.  Section 4 describes the Yakima River Basin Study Summary Plan of Study and schedule.

2 Water Resources Needs in the Yakima Basin

The Yakima River Basin is affected by a variety of water resource problems that impact agriculture, anadromous and resident fish, and municipal and domestic water supply.

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page 7 Ecology’s FEIS listed the following factors2 contributing to water resource problems in the basin:  Demand for irrigation water cannot always be met in years with below-average runoff, leading to reduced (prorationed) irrigation water for junior water-rights holders in drought years.  Farming and related income are reduced in dry years. Consecutive dry years put the basin’s perennial crops at extreme risk.  Dams and other obstructions, and lack of stream flow block fish passage to upstream tributaries and spawning grounds.  Diking, channelization, wetland draining, gravel mining, and road construction have prevented proper floodplain functions.  Riparian habitat has been degraded by past and present land-use practices.  In most years, spring flows in the middle and lower Yakima River are not sufficient to optimize survival of outmigrating smolts.  In most years, summer flows in the Wapato reach and immediately downstream from Prosser Diversion Dam to Chandler Power Plant are too low to maintain riparian function.  Unnaturally high summer flows persist in the upper Yakima and Cle Elum rivers, impacting rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids.  The annual late summer river operation known as flip-flop disrupts salmonid habitat and has negative impacts on aquatic insect populations.  Winter flows in the upper Yakima and Cle Elum rivers are low and controlled for water storage, potentially impacting the survival of overwintering juvenile salmonids.  Water rights in most of the basin are fully appropriated, making it difficult to acquire water rights to meet future municipal and domestic water demand.  Pumping groundwater for irrigation and municipal uses reduces surface-water flows in some locations, which may affect existing water rights.  Hydraulic continuity between groundwater and surface water in the basin creates uncertainty over the status of groundwater rights and exempt wells within the basin’s appropriated water rights system (first in time, first in right), potentially making groundwater use junior to nearly all surface-water use.

2 Factors were slightly modified by Workgroup comments.

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page 8 The Yakima River historically supported large runs of anadromous salmonids, estimated to be 300,000 to 960,000 fish a year in the 1880s. Those numbers have declined drastically, and three salmon species were extirpated from the basin – sockeye, summer Chinook, and coho; however, reintroduction efforts by the Yakama Nation have established natural and hatchery populations for these species throughout a large portion of the basin. The causes for the declines and extirpations are many, including the following:  In the 1900s, crib dams on the four natural glacial lakes contributed to the extirpation of sockeye.  Construction of Reclamation’s five storage dams eliminated access to previously productive spawning and rearing habitat for spring Chinook, coho salmon, steelhead, and resident fish populations, especially bull trout.  Irrigation operations have altered streamflows, resulting in flows at certain times of the year that are too high in some reaches and too low in others to provide good fish habitat. This problem is exacerbated during drought years.  Land development, including road construction, diking, gravel mining, and agriculture has degraded riparian habitat and increased sediment in streams and rivers.  Irrigation diversions have reduced flows and created fish passage barriers in tributary streams.

Drought is a natural phenomenon that, while inevitable, creates significant challenges for irrigators, municipalities, and fish managers – particularly in an over-appropriated and generally arid river basin like the Yakima Basin. On the out-of-stream water-supply side, shortages in drought years lead to reductions in water available for proratable irrigators.

Runoff in the Basin is derived primarily from snowpack, which is considered a “sixth reservoir,” in addition to the Reclamation 1 million acre-feet of reservoir storage. The Reclamation storage represents 30 percent of the annual basin runoff. Reclamation has contracts to supply more than 1.7 million acre-feet of water and therefore has problems delivering adequate water to its users in low water years (Ecology and Reclamation 2009). Over half of the surface-water entitlements in the basin are pro-ratable under a 1945 Consent Decree, including all of the surface water supply for Roza Irrigation District and Kittitas Reclamation District, over half of the Yakama Nation’s Wapato Irrigation Project, a large share of the Sunnyside Division, and many irrigation water- right holders. Drought conditions over the last twenty years are occuring an average of one every four years, reducing proratable supplies to below 70%. Hydrologic modeling performed by Reclamation for the Final Planning Report/EIS (2008) showed that proratable users received 40 percent or less of their normal supplies in 1994 (28 percent),

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page 9 2001 (40 percent), and 2005 (38 percent). There is a concern that climate change will further reduce available supplies and increase the frequency of drought conditions and multiple-year droughts, like the one in 1992-1994, which had significant impacts to the local economy. The Basin is the leading agricultural region in the State. The Yakima Basin accounts for an estimated $3.4 billion of the State’s crop, livestock and food processing economy (WSDA 2009). Water shortages will continue to affect the Basin’s economy .

In addition to economic losses, droughts limit the crops that can be grown and cause conflicts over water use for growth and development in the basin because proratable entitlements for surface water predate newer urban and domestic needs and water rights. Because demand for water supplies cannot be met in low flow years, there is a need to provide more flexibly and efficiency to respond to flow fluctuations.

The purpose of an integrated approach to resolving these water problems is to provide both environmental and economic sustainability in the basin. Ecology’s FEIS describes the benefits of an integrated plan, as provided below: Implementing the different elements of the Integrated Water Resource Management Alternative as a total package is intended to result in greater benefits than implementing any one element alone. Many studies have indicated that ecosystem-level resource management provides greater opportunities for efficiency, synergy, and cooperation between stakeholders which then result in greater overall benefits. For example, providing fish passage at existing reservoirs will open up new habitat for fish, which would benefit fish populations. By also implementing fish habitat improvements and improving flows basin-wide through additional storage and other actions, fish would have improved conditions for survival generally, contributing to increased abundance and productivity. If fish habitat enhancements are implemented without providing fish passage at existing reservoirs and improving flows, the habitat enhancements would have more limited benefits to fish.

New storage projects will provide water to reduce proration of irrigators and help meet future municipal needs. It may also provide additional flows for fish and allow existing reservoir operations to be modified to benefit fish. Enhanced water conservation would provide opportunities to reduce water demand and improve water supply. Market-based reallocation of water resources would provide flexibility to meet the water needs of fish, irrigators, and especially domestic water users. These combined elements may improve the reliability of water supply in drought years and reduce the amount of new storage needed. Ground water storage presents an opportunity to develop storage without the traditional impacts associated with above-ground storage.

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page 10 An integrated approach that contains water storage and facility improvement projects that also meet fish management needs will have the highest likelihood of implementation and success over the long-term. The combined elements presented in this Integrated Water Resource Management Alternative would provide Yakima River basin water and fish managers as well as water users the variety of tools needed to meet their water supply needs and significantly improve conditions for fish.

3 Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan

3.1 Preliminary IWRMP Projects and Actions Summary

The Workgroup has reviewed seven elements (reservoir fish passage, structural/ operational changes, surface storage, groundwater storage, fish habitat enhancements, enhanced water conservation, and market based reallocation of water resources) and specific projects and actions for further consideration and evaluation in 2010. The Workgroup also identified a programmatic approach for agricultural conservation, floodplain restoration, and tributary habitat enhancements. A summary of the preliminary IWRMP actions is provided below. Exhibits 2 – 4 in Attachment A depict where these actions would occur within the basin, and a more detailed description of each action is provided in Attachment C.

The preliminary IWRMP has been organized into two phases: Phase I is for the first 10 years of implementation and Phase II is for years 11 to 30+.

3.1.1 Phase I Projects (Near-term: 0 to 10 Years) Phase I projects would be implemented within the first 10 years of the IWRMP. Projects and actions recommended for further evaluation as potential Phase I projects were selected based on their likelihood of being cost-effective, potential to proceed relatively quickly, a desire to maximize supply and flow benefits from efficiencies in existing supplies, a preference for developing inbasin storage first, and other factors. Actions and projects from all seven elements are implemented in Phase I. Additionally, evaluations are specified for several projects.

Reservoir Fish Passage

 Fish Passage at Cle Elum, Bumping, and Clear Lake3 Dams – Install upstream and downstream passage for fish. Conduct Phase I fish passage feasibility studies for Tieton, Keechelus, and Kachess Dams.

3 Provide for upstream bull trout passage only.

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page 11 Structural/Operational Changes

 Conveyance Improvements at Wapatox – Modify the conveyance to reduce water needed to convey irrigation water.  Subordinate Power at Roza Dam4 – Reduce or eliminate water diversions for power generation at Roza Dam March during outmigration of juvenile anadromous fish in March, April and May. .  Subordinate Power at Chandler – Reduce or eliminate water diversions for power generation at Chandler Powerplant during outmigration of juvenile anadromous fish in March, April and May.  Modifications to Kittitas Reclamation District (KRD) Main Canal and South Branch – Replace open laterals on the Main Canal and South Branch Canal with pressurized pipe systems to allow water discharge directly to tributary creeks or to supply water users currently diverting from tributary creeks.  Cle Elum Dam Pool Raise – Raise Cle Elum Reservoir 3 feet by modifying the spillway gates. Use additional supply (approximately 15 thousand acre feet [kaf]) to enhance instream flows.  Keechelus-to-Kachess Pipeline – Transfer water from Keechelus Reservoir to Kachess Reservoir through approximately 5 miles of pipeline. Explore ways to integrate this work with upcoming I-90 construction project and associated wildlife habitat mitigation/improvements.

 Evaluate Roza Diversion Alternate Supply and Associated Dam Removal ­ Evaluate feeding the Roza canal through an alternative diversion and replacement supply (e.g Wymer Reservoir and/or Columbia River Pumping and Storage), and associated dam removal, Surface Storage

 Wymer Reservoir –162-kaf off-channel reservoir on Lmuma Creek, filled by a pump station located at the dam and/or near Thorp with a canal/pipeline around Kittitas Valley, including power generation.  Bumping Reservoir Enlargement – Replace existing Bumping Reservoir Dam with an enlarge dam to impound 160- to 190-kaf.  Reservoir Inactive Storage – Extract up to 100 kaf of inactive storage from one existing reservoir during drought years.

4 Roza Roller Gate project is not included because it is currently being implemented. This project may also help reduce a portion of the smolt outmigration flow need that would be met through subordination.

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page 12 Groundwater Storage

 Municipal Aquifer Storage and Recovery – Inject treated water to extend available municipal supply in drought or low flow conditions. Explore using this method for other municipal water systems in the Yakima basin where feasible..  Groundwater Infiltration Prior to Storage Control – Use stored water in the winter and early spring (prior to “storage control” or whenever feasible and desirable in light of fish and irrigation needs) to recharge groundwater aquifers. Water would be conveyed to recharge locations using existing canals. This technique may offer opportunities to increase streamflow and augment water supply. This concept requires further development and pilot studies.

Fish Habitat Enhancements

 Mainstem Floodplain Restoration Program – Finalize reach-level priorities and implement projects, with the long-term objective of providing permanent floodplain protection and restoration that provides fish, water quality, and public safety benefits.  Tributaries Habitat Enhancement Program – Implement projects with emphasis on passage, screening and flow restoration on the upper and middle Yakima tributaries, Wilson/Naneum Creeks, and the Yakama Reservation. Implement headwaters restoration and capitalize on emergent habitat project opportunities. Also include analysis and identification of a plan to secure long- term protections for habitat utilizing federal, state, and local legal or policy tools and funding sources to protect important river reaches, potentially in coordination with land and water trusts.

Enhanced Water Conservation

 Agricultural Water Conservation – Implement YRBWEP and enhanced water conservation program to reduce water demands for irrigators and improve stream flows in targeted reaches.  Municipal/Domestic Water Conservation – Reduce water used by municipal water systems and rural households through projects and programs that promote water-use efficiency and conservation.

Market Based Reallocation of Water Resources

 Institutional Improvements to Facilitate Market-Based Water Transfers – Continue existing programs and policies and take additional steps to promote

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page 13 water markets and to reduce impediments to water transfers between, and out of, irrigation districts and participating individual irrigators.

3.1.2 Phase II Projects (Mid-term: 11 to 30+ Years) Phase II includes actions recommended for further evaluation as potential projects for implementation in years 11 to 30+. Projects included for consideration in Phase II include all the elements under consideration for Phase I, plus the projects listed below. Phase II projects are subject to results and findings from the Phase I evaluations, implementation of water market enhancements, and pilot-testing results for aquifer recharge. Municipal, domestic and agricultural water conservation, floodplain restoration, and tributary habitat enhancement programs would continue.

Reservoir Fish Passage

 Fish Passage at Tieton, Keechelus and Kachess Dams – Provide upstream and downstream passage for adult and juvenile salmonids, informed by Phase I evaluation findings.

Surface Storage

 Reservoir Inactive Storage – Extract and additional 100 kaf (for a total of 200 kaf including Phase I) of inactive storage from one or more existing reservoirs during drought years.  Columbia River Pumping and Storage – Pump water from the Columbia River in conjunction with additional storage, contingent on consistency with obligations to protect and restore Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations, and other requirements and obligations, and on demonstrated need from climate change or other factors.

Groundwater Storage

 Additional Groundwater Infiltration Prior to Storage Control – Implement groundwater recharge in feasible locations. Infiltrate water through irrigation conveyance systems and land application. Use surface water available prior to storage control or when otherwise available and appropriate in light of instream and out-of-stream water needs.

Fish Habitat Enhancement

 Mainstem Floodplain Restoration Program – Continue to implement projects with emphasis on Tier II and III reaches.

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page 14  Tributaries Habitat Enhancement Program – Continue to implement enhancement program and headwaters restoration and capitalize on emergent habitat project opportunities.

Enhanced Water Conservation

 Enhanced Water Conservation – Implement additional enhanced water conservation projects consistent with program.

Market Based Reallocation of Water Resources

 Institutional Improvements to Facilitate Market-Based Water Transfers – Continue programs developed in Phase 1 and take additional steps to reduce impediments to water transfers between, within, and out of irrigation districts and participating individual irrigators.

3.2 Preliminary Path Forward and Schedule

Figure 1 outlines the steps for developing and implementing the integrated plan. Figure 2 shows the general proposed schedule, starting with the Workgroup and development of this report, followed by the Basin Study and program implementation through 2040.

Figure 1: IWRMP Development and Implementation Flowchart

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page 15 Preliminary Integrated Water Resources Management Plan

Yakima River Basin Study Update planning documents and Final Integrated SEPA as needed Water Resources Management Plan

State / Stakeholders develop legislative and funding proposal

Authorization and Funding

Phase I Projects (seek Collect & Analyze data Conduct rolling Analyze Phase II additional funding as regarding other demand and supply needed) Phase I Projects analysis Projects

Implement Additional Funding

Implement Phase II

Figure 2: Project Schedule

Phase '09-10 2011-20 2021-40 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Workgroup Develop Integrated Plan Conduct Yakima River Basin Study Final Integrated Water Resources Mgt Plan Legislative and Funding Proposal Seek Authorization Secure Funding Conduct Rolling Demand/Supply Analysis * Analyze Phase I and II Projects Collect/Analyze Data** Phase I Actions Project Implementation Phase II Actions Project Implementation * Periodic review of water needs and supplies as part of adaptive management (see Section 3.4). ** Including Columbia River Pump/Storage Interbasin Transfer

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page 16 3.3 Benefits

3.3.1 Water Supply and Flow Benefits The preliminary IWRMP offers significant progress in meeting the needs outlined in Section 2. It would significantly improve water supply reliability in single and multiyear drought conditions. It would also offer additional flexibility in managing storage releases to meet instream flow needs, providing reductions and increases in flows to benefit spawning, rearing and migration conditions. The additional flow, coupled with habitat enhancements, would improve fish habitat conditions and significantly improve prospects for recovering fish populations to levels that can sustain harvest and are resilient to catastrophic events and the potential impacts of climate change.

The maps (Exhibits 5 – 10) and tables (1 – 4) in Attachment A, along with the following summary bar graphs (Figures 3-5)identify the estimated preliminary IWRMP benefits under 1992-1994 and 2005 drought conditions for Total Water Supply Available (TWSA) for proratable water-right holders and instream flows. Potential benefits are described for Phase I, and Phases I and II combined. In some cases, flow and TWSA benefits likely have been understated because the simplified modeling approach used to calculate these benefits does not account for return-flow increases and other secondary benefits.

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page 17 Figure 3: Estimated TWSA Benefits during Historical Drought Years in Thousands of Acre-feet (kaf)

TWSA (kaf) 3,000 2,481 2,500 214 2,327 2,230 2,314 144 183 256 2,000 262 50 214 296 1,500 2,123 2,094 1,000 1,754 1,762 500 0 1992 1993 1994 2005

Drought Year TWSA Phase I Increase Phase II Increase Values based on RiverWare model and estimated increases.

Figure 4: Estimated Prorated Supply Benefits during Historical Drought Years

Prorated Supply (%) 120% 100% 100% 22% 84% 80% 80% 11% 20% 71% 23% 60% 4% 24% 24% 40% 19% 68% 56% 20% 28% 38% 0% 1992 1993 1994 2005

Drought Year Proration Phase I Increase Phase II Increase

Values based on RiverWare model and estimated increases.

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page 18 Figure 5: Estimated Flow Benefits at the Gauge at Parker during Historical Drought Years

Flow at Parker in Apr-Sep (kaf) 500 424 408 400 87 86 300 149 200 203

100 188 119 0 1994 2005 Drought Year

Flow Phase I Increase Phase II Increase

Values based on RiverWare model and estimated increases.

3.3.2 Habitat Benefits In addition to flow benefits, the preliminary IWRMP would provide significant benefits to fish populations. This includes unimpeded adult and juvenile fish migration past existing Yakima Basin storage dams, which would increase the extent of coho, steelhead, and Chinook habitat in the basin; allow reintroduction of extirpated sockeye runs; and allow expanded migration and genetic interchange for listed bull trout and other native fish. The abundance, life history, and genetic diversity of these and other focal species should increase after fish passage is provided. The program would significantly improve prospects for recovering fish populations to levels that can sustain harvest and are resilient to catastrophic events and the potential impacts of climate change.

Reclamation estimated potential coho production capacity of habitat above Bumping Reservoir at 422 to 486 adults annually (Reclamation 2007a), while passage at Cle Elum Reservoir would provide access to habitat capable of supporting 1,540 adult coho (Reclamation 2007b). Reclamation estimated that Cle Elum Reservoir could produce 30,000 to 50,000 adult sockeye (Reclamation 2007c), while Bumping Reservoir could produce 10,000 to 17,000 adult sockeye (Reclamation 2007d). Estimates of production capacities for habitat above Rimrock, Keechelus, and Kachess are not yet available, but are expected to be substantial, particularly for the forks of the Tieton River above Rimrock.

Restoring connectivity among currently isolated populations of bull trout would allow dispersion of fish among local populations, providing a mechanism to support weaker

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page 19 populations or reestablish population connectivity. It would also allow gene flow among populations, which prevents the loss of genetic variation important for survival in variable environments and decreases the probability of local extirpations.

The floodplain restoration and habitat enhancements in the preliminary IWRMP would accelerate ongoing efforts to protect existing high-value habitats, improve fish passage, enhance flows, improve habitat complexity, and reconnect side channels and off-channel habitat to stream channels. These enhancements would result in significant positive impacts, including the following:  Enhance efforts to meet delisting goals for ESA-listed steelhead and bull trout  Increase Chinook production  Improve prospects for recovering fish populations to levels that can sustain harvest and are resilient to catastrophic events and potential impacts of climate change  Help create improved spawning/incubation, rearing, and migration conditions for all salmonid species in the Yakima Basin  Implement key strategies described in the Yakima Subbasin Plan  Complete most of the actions described in the Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan

3.3.3 Other (Multipurpose) Benefits Other benefits of the preliminary IWRMP, such as recreation (additional fishing and perhaps boating opportunities) and benefits associated with hydropower and flood control, will be characterized in more detail in the 2010 evaluation.

3.3.4 Sample Scorecard A scorecard can be helpful in describing expected benefits and comparing or measuring results. Table 1 is a sample scorecard for Phase I of the preliminary IWRMP. The scorecard lists results for important quantitative criteria. The scorecard describes water quantity, fisheries, power production, adaptability to future climate conditions, cost, and job creation benefits, as available. There are other criteria that are also important, which are more qualitative in nature, but are not included in the sample scorecard. For example, a criterion may be the improved ability to obtain permits to construct a project or withdraw water when ecosystem benefits from the IWRMP are factored into permitting decisions. Cost allocation, and administrative and legal changes are other considerations that may be necessary for successful implementation.

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page 20 Table 1 Sample Scorecard1 Criteria Phase I Water Supply and Instream Flow • Total Water Supply Available Estimated 266 to 325 kaf increase during drought years • Proratable Water Supply Increase (%) Estimated 23% increase during drought years • Reductions in Diversions through Water Conservation 110 kaf in average years (less during drought years) • Instream Flow below Parker (middle and lower Yakima River) Increased in spring and summer; estimated increase in drought years = 100-200 kaf • Instream Flow at Umtanum (Ellensburg Reach in upper Yakima Decreased in summer by estimated 47-125 kaf to improve rearing conditions River) Increased by TBD cfs (TBD kaf) during fall and winter time to improve spawning and • Instream Flow in Upper Yakima River and Cle Elum River rearing Increased flow in Little, Big, Taneum and Manastash Creeks; improved flow regime in • Instream Flow in Tributaries Reecer, Wilson/Naneum Creeks Fisheries 29.4 miles above Cle Elum Dam; 6.6 miles above Bumping Reservoir; TBD above • New spawning and rearing habitat opened above existing dams Clear Lake TBD miles on Swauk, Taneum, Jack, Indian, Manastash, Reecer, Wilson/Naneum, • New spawning and rearing habitat opened on tributaries Cowiche, Ahtanum Creeks • Acres of floodplain habitat improved TBD on Upper, Middle and Lower Yakima River, tributaries • Species benefitted Steelhead, coho, Chinook, sockeye, bull trout, estimated numbers TBD Power Production • Additional Hydropower Produced Increase TBD • Additional Power Required for Pumping Slight increase TBD Adaptability to Future Climate Conditions • Ability to adapt to changing flow conditions/Store higher winter Can store winter flow in Wymer Reservoir, capture additional flow in Bumping flows Reservoir, use inactive storage in Kachess Reservoir • Sustainability of fish runs under future climate conditions Access to headwater areas and improved rearing habitat will improve sustainability Cost • Implementation Cost (Construction, Engineering, Land $2.6 to 3.5 billion Acquisition, etc.) • Operations Cost TBD Job Creation • Short-term and Long-term TBD Environmental Impacts • Short-term and Long-term TBD 1. TBD – To be developed. These items will be assessed as part of the Basin Study in 2010.

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page 21 3.3.5 Mitigation Implementation of many of the projects identified in the preliminary IWRMP will depend on developing successful mitigation strategies. The IWRMP offers substantial benefits that include restoring access to tens of miles of salmonid stream habitat above existing reservoirs, increasing flows to support all salmonid life-stages, providing bull trout connectivity between populations above and below the reservoirs, and improving riparian and floodplain functionality throughout the basin.

However, a few projects would impact important habitats (i.e., late-succession (old growth) forest, shrub-steppe and bull trout habitat), or irrigation district operational costs (i.e., Roza and KID power subordination). These impacts would have to be offset through mitigation acceptable to project sponsors, permitting agencies, and other affected stakeholders. Several mitigation ideas have been identified during Workgroup meetings in addition to the IWRMP benefits. Mitigation strategies for each project in the preliminary plan will be identified in 2010.

3.4 Plan Adjustments Based on Need during Implementation

The preliminary IWRMP is based on the understood needs, available information, and expected benefits. Projects have been included to provide flexibility to meet a variety of conditions. However, when factors such as population growth, fish flows, anticipated timing, and effects of climate change result in changed needs, the IWRMP will need to be adjusted. To account for these adjustments, an adaptive management program will be developed in 2010 that will outline the approach for periodically reviewing and verifying needs, including updating demand and supply forecasts, and verifying estimated benefits. Identify recommended plan adjustments in response to findings.

3.5 Preliminary Appraisal-Level Costs

Table 2 identifies available estimated costs for projects and programs. Costs are not provided in cases where more information and analysis is needed to develop appraisal- level costs. These estimates will be developed in 2010.

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page 22 Table 2 Compilation of Preliminary Implementation Cost Estimates1 Costs ($M) Phase/Project Low High Source Phase I Estimate based on Reclamation's 2008 Fish Passage Draft PR, indexed costs to Fish Passage (Cle Elum, Bumping, Clear) 125 150 October, 2009 (assume Clear Lake = $5M) Conveyance Improvements at Wapatox 2 4 Estimate based on 2008 Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan Roza Power Subordination No capital cost; lost revenue would be incurred Chandler Power Subordination No capital cost; lost revenue would be incurred KRD Main Canal/South Branch Modifications 8 12 Estimate based on CH2M Hill 1999 report, indexed costs to October, 2009 Estimate based on 2000 Cle Elum Improvements Project Cost Estimate Summary Cle Elum 3' Pool Raise 20 40 Report, indexed costs to October, 2009 Doubled Reclamation estimate from 2006 to account for twice capacity, indexed Keechelus-to-Kachess Pipeline 55 65 costs to October, 2009 Wymer Reservoir (162 kaf) 1,200 1,600 Estimate from Reclamation FEIS and Ecology FEIS Wymer Mitigation 10 10 Preliminary Ecology Estimate Bumping Reservoir Enlargement (160-190 kaf) 600 1,000 Estimate $3,000-5,000/AF new storage Bumping Reservoir Enlargement Mitigation 20 20 Preliminary Ecology Estimate Reservoir Inactive Storage (100 kaf) 25 50 Estimate, assumed pump station Municipal Aquifer Storage 4 6 Estimate Groundwater Infiltration 40 100 20-50 kaf x $2,000/AF (assumes implementation, not just pilot) Mainstem Floodplain Restoration 90 110 Habitat Enhancement Projects 50 70 Habitat Enhancement Subcommittee Recommendations Agricultural Conservation (YRBWEP+ 300 300 Estimate from Reclamation and Ecology FEIS Enhanced) Municipal Conservation 1 3 Estimate from Anchor (2007) Facilitate Market Transfers No capital cost; $4-10M annual cost during drought (20-50 kaf x $200/AF) Phase I2 & II Evaluations 25 50

Subtotal: Phase I 2,575 3,590

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page 23 Table 2 Compilation of Preliminary Implementation Cost Estimates1 Costs ($M) Phase/Project Low High Source Phase II Mainstem Floodplain Restoration 25 40 Habitat Enhancement Subcommittee Recommendations Habitat Enhancement Projects 40 60 Habitat Enhancement Subcommittee Recommendations Fish Passage Phase I Assessment Report (assumed Trap-and-Haul with New Fish Fish Passage (Tieton, Keechelus, Kachess) 80 150 Spillway) Estimates from selected Enhanced Conservation projects indexed to October, Enhanced Water Conservation 270 270 2009; includes KID Pump Exchange Project Additional Reservoir Inactive Storage (100 kaf) 25 50 Estimate, assumed pump station Additional Measures to Facilitate Market No capital cost; $8-16M annual cost during drought (40-80 kaf x $200/AF) Transfers Additional Groundwater Infiltration TBD2 TBD Columbia River Pump/Storage (50-300 kaf) TBD TBD Subtotal: Phase II TBD TBD 1. There is variability between previously prepared cost estimates. Costs provided in this table should only be used as an “order of magnitude” estimate for the preliminary IWRMP. More detailed project descriptions will be developed through the Yakima River Basin Study process to allow more accurate and comparable cost estimates to be formulated. 2. Includes a) Columbia Basin inter-basin transfer technical evaluation, NEPA/SEPA review and design; and b) evaluation of Roza Dam removal and replacement with alternate supply and diversion along with other evaluations. 3. Projects listed as “TBD” in Table 2 are not adequately defined to support development of cost estimates at this time.

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page 24 4 Summary and Schedule of the Yakima River Basin Plan of Study

Reclamation and Ecology will conduct a Basin Study to further develop the technical basis and decision support for an IWRMP. The IWRMP is being developed under authority provided to Reclamation by the existing YRBWEP Act (P.L. 103-434, October 31, 1994, as amended by P.L. 105-62, October 13, 1997, and P.L. 106-372, October 27, 2000). This effort, in effect, constitutes the next phase of YRBWEP. The study will supplement information provided through previous efforts to evaluate water supply and aquatic resource problems as well as to identify potential remedies.

During 2010, the Basin Study effort will evaluate potential actions (or subgroups of those tools) identified by the YRBWEP Workgroup for addressing the water and aquatic resource needs of the Yakima River Basin. Upon completion of the Basin Study, the YRBWEP Workgroup will be asked to provide recommendations concerning the content of a Final IWRMP. It is anticipated that such recommendations will include identification of specific elements and projects to be included in the Final IWRMP as well as the timing (phasing) of those elements and projects.

The Basin Study and Final IWRMP are intended to accomplish the following objectives: 1) Achieve stakeholder consensus around a well defined set of strategies for resolving water supply and stream flow imbalances as well as other aquatic resource issues, 2) Delineate a clear pathway for short-term and long-term IWRMP implementation, and 3) Provide the basis for a request by Ecology and stakeholders for Congressional and State Legislative authorization and appropriations for the IWRMP.

The scope of the Basin Study is summarized as follows:  Task 1 – Characterize and quantify the water resources of the basin.  Task 2 – Determine the current and future water needs for out-of-stream uses for defined planning periods (phases). This includes the following water use components: municipal and industrial uses, domestic (exempt) well uses, domestic use not connected to municipal systems (i.e., rural residential), and demand for irrigated agriculture, particularly focusing on quantifying additional supplies needed to provide various levels of dry year/drought relief for proratable irrigation districts. The primary source for irrigated agriculture demand will be based on estimates provided by Reclamation and irrigation districts. This information will be reviewed through a third party evaluation. The study shall identify the difference in demand that results from a “no action” scenario for

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page 25 conservation, efficiency, water markets, and groundwater management and one that incorporates the actions identified to date by the Workgroup as well as implementation of best management practices in agricultural, domestic, and municipal water use throughout the Basin. It shall also identify the benefits and costs of providing various levels of drought relief to the local and national economies, specifically comparing the cost of water management alternatives, including demand reduction, with the benefits accruing from those alternatives. Future irrigation needs will be predicated on no increase in irrigated acreage, which is consistent with YRBWEP legislation.  Task 3 – Quantify instream resource needs by major reach, by season.  Task 4 – Develop detailed descriptions for elements and projects identified in the preliminary IWRMP.  Task 5 – For each element and project, conduct an analysis of potential environmental, engineering, policy, and/or legal barriers to implementation and estimated costs. At the end of this task, the YRBWEP Workgroup may decide to modify or eliminate certain actions that it submitted for study at the outset of the Basin Study process. At the completion of this task, the Workgroup may decide to modify the preliminary IWRMP before proceeding to subsequent tasks.  Task 6 – Using models such as Yakima RiverWare and other analytical tools, evaluate the efficacy of various strategies for meeting out-of-stream and instream needs, including both storage (above ground and aquifer storage) and non-storage options [demand reduction; agricultural, municipal, non-municipal domestic (including exempt wells and rural residential) conservation measures; and water banking/marketing]. Evaluations will consider the cumulative effect of multiple water supply options implemented in combination, and will do so under different operation scenarios to optimize the IWRMP.  Task 7 – Using models and other analytical tools, evaluate the total ecosystem benefits of implementing instream water supply strategies in conjunction with efforts to achieve other aquatic resources objectives, including fish passage at major Reclamation reservoirs in the Basin and habitat restoration.  Task 8 – Using models and other analytical tools, evaluate the manner in which potential climate impacts might affect the selection and timing of elements and projects that may be included in the Final IWRMP. Such evaluations will also address means by which flexible approaches and adaptation to climate change and other uncertainties (such as population growth or changes in land use or land management) could be built into the IWRMP.  Task 9 – Based on the evaluations conducted as part of Tasks 6-8, develop recommendations for timing and sequencing of projects, including identification

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page 26 of triggers for commencing projects contained in the second phase of the IWRMP and identification of any projects that clearly lack merit in light of the Basin Study analysis.  Task 10 – Assist the Workgroup in developing final recommendations for the IWRMP. The final package of actions submitted by the Workgroup may be informed by the Basin Study findings, and the sensitivity of these to action- specific environmental and socioeconomic concerns and uncertainties.  Task 11 – Assuming the Workgroup agrees on a final package of actions, prepare Basin Study Report and Final Yakima River Basin IWRMP.

Milestones for Workgroup Meetings:  Meeting 1 (March 2010) – Report on quantified out-of stream and instream needs by reach  Meeting 2 (April 2010) – Detailed description of projects  Meeting 3 (May 2010) – Engineering/environmental/legal constraints to implementation  Meetings 4-8 (as needed, June-Sept 2010) – Analytical outputs, optimization – modeling and combination of alternatives synergy and linkages – resulting in most effective IWRMP.  Meeting 9 (October-November 2010) – Formal recommendation

5 References

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. December 2008. Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study. Final Planning Report/Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2007a. Coho Salmon Production Potential in the Bumping River Basin, Storage Dam Fish Passage Study, Yakima Project, Washington, Technical Series No. PN-YDFP-009, Boise, Idaho. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2007b. Coho Salmon Production Potential in the Cle Elum River Basin, Storage Dam Fish Passage Study, Yakima Project, Washington. Technical Series No. PN-YDFP-007. Boise, Idaho. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2007c. Assessment of Sockeye Salmon Production Potential in the Cle Elum River Basin, Storage Dam Fish Passage Study, Yakima Project, Washington, Technical Series No. PN-YDFP-008. Boise, Idaho. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2007d. Assessment of Sockeye Salmon Production Potential in the Bumping River Basin, Storage Dam Fish Passage Study, Yakima Project, Washington, Technical Series No. PN-YDFP-010. Boise, Idaho.

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page 27 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Chapter 21, Middle Columbia Recovery Unit, Washington. 86p. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. Washington Department of Ecology. June 2009. Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Alternative. Publication No. 09-11-012. Washington Department of Ecology. December 2007. Technical Report on the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative for the Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study. Publication No. 07-11-004. Washington Department of Ecology and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. June 2009. Water Conservation Initiative – Basin Study Program. Yakima Basin Study Proposal. Washington State Department of Agriculture. 2009. Publications 120-126 (R/4/09) and 120-127 (R/4/09). Available at http://agr.wa.gov/AgInWa/Crop_Maps.aspx

Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page 28 Attachment A Tables and Exhibits for the Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan for the Yakima Basin

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1 Yakima River Basin ...... A-2 Exhibit 2 Projects in Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan: Upper Yakima River ...... A-3 Exhibit 3 Projects in Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan: Middle and Lower Yakima River ...... A-4 Exhibit 4 Projects in Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan: Naches River Basin ...... A-5 Exhibit 5 Winter Existing Flow Conditions and Phase I Improvements ...... A-6 Exhibit 6 Spring Existing Flow Conditions and Phase I Improvements ...... A-7 Exhibit 7 Summer Existing Flow Conditions and Phase I Improvements ...... A-8 Exhibit 8 Winter Existing Flow Conditions and Phase I and II Improvements ...... A-9 Exhibit 9 Spring Existing Flow Conditions and Phase I and II Improvements ...... A-10 Exhibit 10 Summer Existing Flow Conditions and Phase I and II Improvements ..... A-11

List of Tables

Table 1 Estimated Water Supply Benefits for 1992–1994, Phase I Projects (0–10 Years) ...... A-12 Table 2 Estimated Water Supply Benefits for 1992–1994, Phase II Projects (11–30+ Years) ...... A-14 Table 3 Estimated Water Supply Benefits for 2005, Phase I Projects (0–10 Years) ...... A-15 Table 4 Phase II Projects (11–30+ Years) ...... A-17

Attachment A Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page A-1 12 12 Miles Miles 90 § ¨ ¦ 0 Spokane Spokane Pasco Kennewick Kennewick 84 § ¨ ¦ Richland OREGON OREGON WASHINGTON WASHINGTON Yakima Yakima Seattle 5 § ¨ ¦ AREA Dams Rivers, Creeks Bodies Water Yakima River Basin Boundary Nation* Yakama Project IrrigationYakima Districts Interstate Highway US Highway City Boundaries County Boundary Vancouver PROJECT t u § ¨ ¦ LEGEND *Updated information*Updated displaying D' 'Tract was not available for production thisof report. 12 t u Almira Almira Mesa Mesa Mesa 395 Krupp Krupp t u

Warden Warden

730

R t u I R R V E

Creek

Creek Creek

Wilson

Hartline Wilson Hartline C O A A I L B U M Othello Othello 82 Kennewick Kennewick Pasco § ¨ ¦ Pasco FRANKLIN COUNTYFRANKLIN ADAMS COUNTY 182 § ¨ ¦ Coulee City Moses Lake Moses

Coulee City Moses Lake Lake Moses Richland Richland

a r m i e

v

Dam

k i

a

R Y City Benton Soap Lake Benton City Benton Soap Lake Ephrata Wanawish Diversion Ephrata 2 GRANT COUNTY t u Exhibit 1 Dam Priest Priest Dam Rapids Royal CityRoyal Royal City 90 Prosser Diversion § ¨ ¦ Dam

Wanapum

R R River BasinYakima

E

V

I COUNTY BENTON

Prosser

Prosser Prosser R

M

U L B

O I

A A Quincy Quincy C George George Mattawa Mattawa Grandview Grandview Mabton Mabton DOUGLAS COUNTY Dam Sunnyside Sunnyside Sunnyside (Parker) COUNTY

A YAKIMA KITTITAS KITTITAS I COUNTY Diversion COLUMB Sunnyside Waterville Waterville Waterville RIVER Rock Island Rock Rock Island Island Rock

Granger Granger

Entiat Entiat

k k Zillah

e Zillah e

r

C

n

a

m

e

l Dam

o

C

k k e

e

k k Wapato

r 82

e

C

m

Diversion

Wenatchee u

k k e § ¨ ¦

r r

e e Toppenish

Wenatchee

e e Toppenish r

n

v

r

i

a

C

R

C 97

N a n n

o Moxee

s Moxee

l

m

y i

i t u

k

Kittitas r

W Kittitas Wapato a

r Wapato

Y e

h

er C

ec k e

Cashmere e w

Cashmere Cashmere R k e e

d e

i o k r

k C

e e l

e Selah e

r Selah l

r s s

C Harrah

Yakima

Harrah Harrah u Yakima

W e t a e e

r k k o

m m S

C C r k k

Ellensburg H Ellensburg u

e C

h a

u

w k k

n S e

s r

a

97

t a

C

t

t u h

s A

nawa y a

k k n Naches Leavenworth a Naches Naches Leavenworth Leavenworth

k e

e e

v r a h h

i

c T

e k

R s

M Tieton

a i r

Tieton e

m Dam

Roza Roza n

J e

C k u r

e e e

Dam C

e Diversion p n

r p Easton KLICKITAT COUNTY COUNTY KLICKITAT

a

Dam o

C

Diversion T s T Tieton

e Goldendale ch Goldendale a er Diversion

CHELAN COUNTY COUNTY CHELAN N iv R m Cle u Dam Elum

l ElumCle n r E ElumCle e a o e l r Roslyn e Roslyn t C v v i m i i r e R i

k e R

r T

a v

i k e

e

Y C

e r e v r r e v i

R l

i

R t

e e

l t R

t t

L i i

s s s

e h L s c

a e

K h

Cle Elum Lake Lake Elum Cle c

r r

g g a

e

k Lake Rimrock

e

n

N v

i e i

r Dam

p

R C Lake

d Tieton

l

o m n n

r r

G

Kachess Kachess u

a

e

B

c

v

i n

i a

r di R e n

I ek

m Cre A Skykomish Skykomish 90 Lake Bumping

§ ¨ ¦ Dam Keechelus Lake Lake Keechelus Kachess Dam Dam Clear Creek Dam Lake 12 KING COUNTY KING

Keechelus t u

PIERCE COUNTY COUNTY PIERCE LEWIS COUNTY COUNTY LEWIS Bumping Bumping

PM 3:06 12/18/2009 ckiblinger 01_Yakima_River_Basin\Maps\2009_12\Vicinity_Map_Summary_Front_of_Report_8x11.mxd ‐ Q:\Jobs\070402

Water Conservation Projects and t97 LEGEND u Tributary Habitat Enhancement Projects Not Shown Projects Contained in Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan Entiat Dams ut2 Rivers, Creeks Keechelus to Kachess Fish Passage at Water Bodies Pipeline Keechelus Dam KING COUNTY Yakima River Basin Boundary Yakama Nation C l Fish Passage at e t2 R u E Yakima Project Irrigation Districts i Kachess Dam; v lu e m r Kachess Inactive Storage ¦¨§ InterstateCashmere Highway ut US Highway CHELAN COUNTY Keechelus City Boundary Dam Fish passage at

d k Cle Elum Dam; l County BoundaryWenatchee e o

90 e

¨¦§ G r s Cle Elum Pool Raise East Wenatchee s

C r

e

e h v CO i LU c MBI

R A Kachess Lake a RIVE K ut97 R Cle Elum Dam Cle Elum Kachess Lake Dam Mainstem Floodplain Restoration reek Upper Ellensburg Reach (Tier II) Keechelus Jack C Y Lake a R k i i

v m

k k

e k a u

r e a T e Thorp Pump Station to Enlarged e r Mainstem Floodplain Restoration an w

a C w S Riv a y KRD North Branch Canal to Wymer Reservoir Easton Reach (Tier II) er Roslyn

Easton Diversion Dam Y m g Cle Elum a k i kim u B e ek R a W e e i e v C n r e r r i a C r l s C e e k N o e tl e t k n i e r L k

Kittitas Reclamation District e C Re

e Main Canal and r e

c

e South Branch Modifications Tan n C eu m r

C Augment Flow in Tributaries Creek ma Y r

e e a l

k e R o

m m

i k k i m C

N v u a L e e i a e c e tt r

h r e l e n

s a R C i N ve r PM n Groundwater o sh s k nasta il e Infiltration 3:15 a M W re

n ca reek C Kittitas eri C Am er Riv KITTITAS 90 y § r ¨¦ Existing r COUNTY e 12/18/2009 k h e Bumping C re C Lake YAKIMA COUNTY Dam ¨¦§82 ckiblinger

Bumping Lake N g a R c n i i h r v p e e e PIERCE s v r COUNTY m i u R B Mainstem Floodplain Restoration Roza Ellensburg/Schaake Reach (Tier I) Diversion LEWIS Wymer Reservoir COUNTY Dam Na ch R e I iv s n Tieton Dam e d r i a a m n Tieton i r T k e ieto n a C Y iv r Ri R e ver e Wapato k ut12 Tieton Selah Diversion Rimrock Lake Diversion Dam Dam Yakima Wide Union H ollow Gap Moxee Sunnyside htanu m C A reek Creek Diversion Dam (Parker)

01_Yakima_River_Basin\Maps\2009_12\Upper_Yakima_Preliminary.mxd Y ‐ ak R im iv e a 0 5 10 r

Miles Wapato Q:\Jobs\070402

Exhibit 2 Projects Under Consideration in Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan Upper Yakima River Y a k 82 Water Conservation Projects and i ¨¦§ m Columbia River Pumping Othello a

Tributary Habitat Enhancement Projects Not Shown R (Location TBD)

i

v e Evaluate Roza Diversion Roza r Subordinate Power at Roza Alternate Supply and Diversion Associated Dam Removal Dam Mattawa I n GRANT d Naches N FRANKLIN COUNTY i a a COUNTY n Tieton R c Mainstem Floodplain Restoration Tiet 12 h o n ut i C v e e r Riv s Selah/Taylor Reach (Tier II) e er r e k I A Tieton B Cowiche Selah M Rimrock Lake LU R Diversion Creek CO E Tieton RIV Dam Sunnyside Dam Yakima Mainstem Floodplain Restoration Diversion Priest Rapids Dam Wide Benton City/West Richland Gap Reach (Tier III) Ahtanu m Hollow Union Gap Moxee Dam (Parker) Creek Creek PM Y Wanawish ak Mainstem Floodplain Restoration R im i 4:54 v a Diversion Mainstem Floodplain Restoration er Wapato Reach (Tier II)

Union Gap Reach (Tier I) Wapato Dam A A Wapato Diversion I

B

R

M Dam E 12/18/2009

U V

I

L Harrah Zillah R h O nis pe Toppenish C p ek o re T C 395 ckiblinger ut BENTON Richland Granger Y aki COUNTY R m ive a r Sunnyside a akim Y er Riv Groundwater Infiltration Benton City ¨¦§182 Pasco Grandview ut97 ¨¦§82 Mabton Kennewick LEGEND Prosser Projects Contained in Preliminary Integrated Prosser Water Resource Management Plan Diversion Dam Mainstem Floodplain Restoration Dams s Yakima Delta (Tier III) k u t Rivers, Creeks a ee r S C Water Bodies YAKIMA COUNTY

Yakima River Basin Boundary KLICKITAT COUNTY Yakama Nation Yakima Project Irrigation Districts ¦¨§ Interstate Highway Subordinate Power at Chandler

01_Yakima_River_Basin\Maps\2009_12\Middle_Lower_Yakima_Preliminary.mxd t US Highway ‐ u City Boundary ut730 0 5.51 1 County Boundary Miles

Q:\Jobs\070402 Goldendale

Exhibit 3 Projects Under Consideration in Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan Middle and Lower Yakima River

Taneum Creek

m m

k

u

e

e e

Water Conservation projects and k

r n

LEGEND e

a C e

r Tributary Habitat Enhancement Projects Not Shown 90 N

C ¨¦§ Projects Contained in Preliminary Integrated N r ut97 e a L Water Resource Management Plan c i c t k h t e e l e e e s e r R Dams R i v C e Ellensburg r n Rivers, Creeks a n n o m s k e Water Bodies il e l W re o C C Mainstem Floodplain Restoration Yakima River Basin Boundary America n Nile Reach (Tier II) Kittitas River Yakama Nation Yakima Project Irrigation Districts

k ¦¨§ Interstate Highway e re C ut US Highway y rr e Existing KITTITAS COUNTY h Bumping City Boundary C Lake YAKIMA COUNTY County Boundary Dam N a Complete Wapatox R c 14 PM PM 14 i h Bumping Lake v e Project e s 3: Fish Passage at r Bumping Lake Dam; Y Bumping Lake Enlargement a Ri k /18/2009 i (200 KAF) v m e a r 12

PIERCE COUNTY g Roza in p m er Diversion u iv LEWIS COUNTY B R Dam

Naches Tieton

I n Diversion d

i a Tieton

n Dam

C Fish Passage at o n r t e ie er Fish Passage at e Tieton Dam T iv 82 k R ¨¦§ Clear Lake Dam

12 Selah ut Rimrock Lake Na Mainstem Floodplain Restoration C che s owic R Lower Naches Reach (Tier I) h e C iver reek

Tieton Yakima Dam Municipal Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wide Hollow Creek Union Gap Moxee

0 6 Ahtanu m Creek Miles ut97 Q:\Jobs\070402-01_Yakima_River_Basin\Maps\2009_12\Naches_Preliminary.mxd ckiblinger Q:\Jobs\070402-01_Yakima_River_Basin\Maps\2009_12\Naches_Preliminary.mxd

Exhibit 4 Projects Under Consideration in Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan Naches River Basin LEGEND ut97 Dams SNOHOMISH Rivers, Creeks Index COUNTY CHELAN COUNTY WaterMansfield Bodies KING COUNTY Yakima River Basin Boundary Skykomish ut2 Yakama Nation Entiat ¦¨§ Interstate Highway ut US Highway Coulee City Leavenworth Cityut Boundaries2 County Boundary Keechelus Dam Cashmere DOUGLAS

COUNTY m Current Winter Flow Issues/Needs

u r l e E d v l k e i 97 Flow is greatly reduced/needs more flow s ut l o e R 90 s C Wenatchee G e r r e ¨¦§ e C h k Soap Lake v ac Flow is reduced/needs more flow i J c Rock Island a k Keechelus Lake R Cree

K

A A Kachess I

B GRANT COUNTY R R Ephrata k

E Lake M k N u a e V T n U I e a e Cle Elum Lake a e u Kachess Dam C L

n r R

aw w re m C e O

Riv a y S k er C Easton Roslyn 1994: Quincy6 KAF (2%) increase Diversion Cle Elum k 2005: 11 KAF (3%) increase Dam e

k e

r

e

e e k k l Moses Lake e C t e ane t T u m r i g i e B n r C L Cree k k a Cree C r N e m 90 L c e a l §

e ¨¦ c it t o h e e le George C

s R PIERCE R Cle Elum Dam iv n e o k r s COUNTY l e i e n W r ica C Wanapum Dam er h Kittitas m er tas A iv as Y an a y R g M k r n ree k r i C i e k p N m h e r a e m e a C r v Bumping R c Royal City u i i h C B R v e R C Lake e s i O r v Roza e R L r I U Bumping Lake Dam V Diversion M E Priest R B Dam I ¨¦§82 A Rapids ADAMS Dam Tieton Dam KITTITAS COUNTY COUNTY Mattawa I n LEWIS Cr n d ieto e i T YAKIMA COUNTY FRANKLIN a er Tieton e v COUNTY n Ri k COUNTY 12 Tieton ut Rimrock Lake Diversion C owich e Dam C BENTON COUNTY reek Union Ahtanu m Wide Moxee Sunnyside reek Hollow Gap C Creek Diversion Wapato Dam (Parker) Diversion Wanawish

A

I

Dam Diversion B Wapato R

E

Dam M

V U

Harrah I

L

R O

Toppenish C Prosser Diversion s h Sunnyside ni Dam pe op ek Pasco T re ut97 C Grandview Richland Mabton Y ak Kennewick R im a iver

1994: 6 KAF (1%) increase s k u t e a e 2005: 11 KAF (2%) increase r S C 1994: 6 KAF (1%) increase 82 2005: 11 KAF (1%) increase ¨¦§

KLICKITAT COUNTY

0 8 16 ut730 395 Miles 84 ut Goldendale ¨¦§ :Jb\7420_aiaRvrBsnMp\091\hs__lwIpvWne.x ckiblingerQ:\Jobs\070402-01_Yakima_River_Basin\Maps\2009_11\Phase_I_Flow_Imprv_Winter.mxd 12/08/2009 PM 5:11 Exhibit 5 Winter Existing Flow Conditions and Phase I Improvements ut97LEGEND Dams SNOHOMISH Chelan Rivers, Creeks Index COUNTY CHELAN COUNTY WaterMansfield Bodies KING COUNTY Yakima River Basin Boundary Skykomish ut2 Yakama Nation Entiat Interstate Highway 1994: 61 KAF (122%) increase ¦¨§ Waterville ut US Highway 2005: 66 KAF (263%) increase Coulee City Leavenworth Cityut Boundaries2 County Boundary Keechelus Dam Cashmere DOUGLAS COUNTY Current Spring Flow Issues/Needs

d s l k 97 Flow is greatly reduced/needs more flow s ut o e r e Wenatchee 90 G e e h § r v ¨¦ i C c k Flow is reduced/needsSoap Lake more flow m ac a R J u r k Rock Island K l e Keechelus Lake e Cre E v

i

A A

e I Kachess l R

C B GRANT COUNTY R R Ephrata k

E Lake M k N u a e V T n U I e a e Cle Elum Lake a e u Kachess Dam C L

n r R

aw w re m C e O

Riv a y S k e C Easton Roslyn r Quincy Diversion i g Cle Elum B ek k 1994: 11 KAF (3%) increase Dam e e r e k C l e t e r t 2005: 37 KAF (9%) increase Moses Lake i e ane R C r T u m L C e C Cree n k r e a e N c L e m a i e 90 t k e c t r h l § l ¨¦ e e s o George R n C PIERCE iv o k Cle Elum Dam s e l e r i e r W COUNTY C a n N ic a Wanapum Dam er R c h m er i h tas A iv v e as Y e an a R r s M k ry ree k C i er m h eek Bumping a C r Royal City C R C Lake i v O Roza e R L r I U Bumping Lake Dam V Diversion M E Priest B g R

n Dam I 82 A i Rapids r § ADAMS p ¨¦ e m v Dam i u COUNTY R B Tieton Dam KITTITAS COUNTY Mattawa I n LEWIS Cr n d ieto e i T YAKIMA COUNTY FRANKLIN a er Tieton e v COUNTY n Ri k COUNTY ut12 Tieton Rimrock Lake C Diversion o w e C ich 1994: 57-97 KAF (59-101%) increase Dam re BENTON COUNTY ek Yakima Moxee Sunnyside 2005: 110 KAF (76%) increase Diversion Ahtanu m Creek Wapato Dam (Parker) Diversion Wanawish

A

I

Dam Diversion B Wapato R

E

Dam M

V U

Harrah I

L

R O

Toppenish C h is Prosser en 1994: 74 KAF (28%) increase pp k Diversion To ee Sunnyside 2005: 79 KAF (55%) increase Cr Dam Pasco ut97 Grandview Richland Mabton Y ak Kennewick R im a iver 1994: 73-113 KAF (55-86%) increase s k u t e 2005: 133 KAF (213%) increase a e r S C ¨¦§82 1994: 143-183 KAF (113-145%) increase KLICKITAT COUNTY 2005: 204 KAF (303%) increase

0 8 16 ut730 1994: 80-120 KAF (33-50%) increase 395 Miles 84 ut Goldendale 2005: 121 KAF (82%) increase¨¦§ Q:\Jobs\070402-01_Yakima_River_Basin\Maps\2009_11\Phase_I_Flow_Imprv_Spring.mxd ckiblingerQ:\Jobs\070402-01_Yakima_River_Basin\Maps\2009_11\Phase_I_Flow_Imprv_Spring.mxd 12/08/2009 PM 5:33 Exhibit 6 Spring Existing Flow Conditions and Phase I Improvements ut97LEGEND Dams SNOHOMISH Chelan Rivers, Creeks Index COUNTY CHELAN COUNTY WaterMansfield Bodies KING COUNTY Yakima River Basin Boundary Skykomish ut2 Yakama Nation Entiat Interstate Highway 1994: 33 KAF (87%) increase ¦¨§ Waterville 2005: 33 KAF (90%) increase ut US Highway C Coulee City l e R E Leavenworth City Boundaries iv lu ut2 e m r County Boundary Keechelus Dam Cashmere DOUGLAS COUNTY Current Summer Flow Issues/Needs

d l k ut97 Flow is greatly reduced/needs more flow o e Wenatchee e 90 G r Soap Lake ¨¦§ C Jack Flow is reduced/needs more flow ek Rock Island K Cre

a Flow is increased/needs less flow A A

R c I i h

v B GRAN T COUNTY e R e Ephrata s k

E r k M Flow is greatly increased/needs less flow s N u a e V

n U

I a e e u Kachess Dam C L Tea r R

na w re m w C e O Riv a S k e C Easton Roslyn r y

Diversion i g Cle Elum B ek k Dam e e r e k C l e t e r t k Moses Lake i e C ane e r T u m

L e

n C Cree r

k a C

N m a Li r 90 e c tt e h l § l ¨¦ e e c s o George R e C PIERCE iv e n 1994: 47-125 KAF (12-31%) decrease Cle Elum Dam o k

e R r s e l i e 2005: 47-125 KAF (11-28%) decrease COUNTY r W C a n N Kittitas ic a Increased Flow Wanapum Dam er R c h m r i h as e v e st Y A iv e a R s an a y g r M k r n ree k r i C i e k p m h e r e m e Bumping a C r Royal City u iv C B R R C Lake i v O Roza e R L r I U Dam V Diversion M E Priest R B Dam I ¨¦§82 A Rapids ADAMS Dam Tieton Dam KITTITAS COUNTY COUNTY Mattawa I n LEWIS Cr n d ieto e i T YAKIMA COUNTY FRANKLIN a er Tieton e v COUNTY n Ri k COUNTY ut12 Tieton Rimrock Lake C Diversion o w e C ich Dam re BENTON COUNTY ek Yakima Moxee Sunnyside Diversion Ahtanu m Creek Wapato Dam (Parker) Diversion Wanawish

A

I

Dam Diversion B R

prv_Summer_Before_Flip_Flop.mxd prv_Summer_Before_Flip_Flop.mxd ckiblinger 12/08/2009 5:12 PM Wapato

E

nis h Dam M V

e U p Harrah I p L o ek R

re O T C Toppenish C Prosser 1994: 46 KAF (39%) increase Sunnyside Diversion 2005: 46 KAF (34%) increase Dam Pasco Sa tu s Grandview Cr eek Richland Mabton Y ak Kennewick R im a iver 1994: 34-74 KAF (61-132%) increase 2005: 63 KAF (111%) increase 1994: 41-81 KAF (49-96%) increase 82 2005: 51 KAF (37%) increase ¨¦§

KLICKITAT COUNTY t97 0 8 16 u ut730 ut395 Miles ¨¦§84 Q:\Jobs\070402-01_Yakima_River_Basin\Maps\2009_11\Phase_I_Flow_Im Exhibit 7 Summer Existing Flow Conditions and Phase I Improvements ut97LEGEND Dams SNOHOMISH Chelan Rivers, Creeks Index COUNTY CHELAN COUNTY WaterMansfield Bodies KING COUNTY Yakima River Basin Boundary Skykomish ut2 Yakama Nation Entiat ¦¨§ Interstate Highway Waterville ut US Highway Coulee City Leavenworth Cityut Boundaries2 County Boundary Keechelus Dam Cashmere DOUGLAS

COUNTY m Current Winter Flow Issues/Needs

u r l e E d v l k e i 97 Flow is greatly reduced/needs more flow s ut l o e R 90 s C Wenatchee G e r r e ¨¦§ e C h k Soap Lake v ac Flow is reduced/needs more flow i J c Rock Island a k Keechelus Lake R Cree

K

A A Kachess I

B GRANT COUNTY R R

k

E Lake M k N u a e V T n U I e a e Cle Elum Lake a e u Kachess Dam C L

n r R

aw w re m C e O

Riv a y S k e C Easton Roslyn r 1994: Quincy12 KAF (4%) increase Diversion Cle Elum k 2005: 22 KAF (5%) increase Dam e

k e

r

e

e e k l Moses Lake e C t e ane t T u m r i g i e B n r C L Cree k k a Cree C r N e m 90 L c e a l §

e ¨¦ c it t o h e e le George C

s R PIERCE R Cle Elum Dam iv n e o k r s COUNTY l e i e n W r ica C Wanapum Dam er h Kittitas m er tas A iv as Y an a R g M k n ree k i C i p N m r a m e a v Bumping R c Royal City u i i h B R v e R C Lake e s i O r v Roza e R L r I U Bumping Lake Dam V Diversion M E Priest R B Dam I ¨¦§82 A Rapids ADAMS Dam Tieton Dam KITTITAS COUNTY COUNTY Mattawa I n LEWIS Cr n d o iet e i T YAKIMA COUNTY FRANKLIN a er Tieton e v COUNTY n Ri k COUNTY 12 Tieton ut Rimrock Lake Diversion C owich e Dam C BENTON COUNTY reek Union Ahtanu m Wide Moxee Sunnyside reek Hollow Gap C Creek Diversion Wapato Dam (Parker) Diversion Wanawish

A

I

Dam Diversion B Wapato R

E

Dam M

V U

Harrah I

L

R O

Toppenish C Prosser Diversion s h Sunnyside ni Dam pe op ek Pasco T re ut97 C Grandview Richland Mabton Y ak Kennewick R im a iver

1994: 12 KAF (3%) increase s k u t e a e 2005: 22 KAF (4%) increase r S C 1994: 12 KAF (1%) increase 82 2005: 22 KAF (2%) increase ¨¦§

KLICKITAT COUNTY

0 8 16 ut730 395 Miles 84 ut Goldendale ¨¦§ II_Flow_Imprv_Winter.mxd II_Flow_Imprv_Winter.mxd ckiblinger Q:\Jobs\070402-01_Yakima_River_Basin\Maps\2009_11\Phase_I_and_ 12/08/2009 PM 5:38 Exhibit 8 Winter Existing Flow Conditions and Phase I and II Improvements ut97LEGEND Dams SNOHOMISH Chelan Rivers, Creeks Index COUNTY CHELAN COUNTY WaterMansfield Bodies KING COUNTY Yakima River Basin Boundary Skykomish ut2 Yakama Nation Entiat Interstate Highway 1994: 61 KAF (122%) increase ¦¨§ Waterville ut US Highway 2005: 66 KAF (263%) increase Coulee City Leavenworth Cityut Boundaries2 County Boundary Keechelus Dam Cashmere DOUGLAS COUNTY Current Spring Flow Issues/Needs

d s l k 97 Flow is greatly reduced/needs more flow s ut o e r e Wenatchee 90 G e e h § r v ¨¦ i C c k Flow is reduced/needsSoap Lake more flow m ac a R J u r k Rock Island K l e Keechelus Lake e Cre E v

i

A A

e I Kachess l R

C B GRANT COUNTY R R Ephrata k

E Lake M k N u a e V T n U I e a e Cle Elum Lake a e u Kachess Dam C L

n r R

aw w re m C e O

Riv a y S k e C Easton Roslyn r 1994: 22 KAF (6%) increaseQuincy Diversion i g Cle Elum 2005: 59 KAF (15%) increase B ek k Dam e e r e k C l e t e r t Moses Lake i e R C r South Cle Elum L C e C Taneu m n r e C a r e N ee c L e m a i k e 90 t k e c t r h l § l ¨¦ e e s o George R n C PIERCE iv o k 1994: 68-108 KAF (98-112%) increase Cle Elum Dam s e l e r i e r W 2005: 132 KAF (91%) increase COUNTY C a n N ic a Wanapum Dam er R c h m er i h tas A iv v e as Y e an a R r s M k ree k C i m

Bumping a Royal City R C Lake i v O Roza e R L r I U Bumping Lake Dam V Diversion M E Priest B g R

n Dam I 82 A i Rapids r § ADAMS p ¨¦ e m v Dam i u COUNTY R B Tieton Dam KITTITAS COUNTY Mattawa I n LEWIS Cr n d ieto e i T YAKIMA COUNTY FRANKLI N a er Tieton e v COUNTY n Ri k COUNTY ut12 Tieton Rimrock Lake C Diversion o w e C ich Dam re BENTON COUNTY ek Yakima Moxee Sunnyside Diversion Ahtanu m Creek Wapato Dam (Parker) Diversion Wanawish

A

I

Dam Diversion B Wapato R

E

Dam M

V U

Harrah I

L

R O

h Toppenish C is Prosser en 1994: 74 KAF (28%) increase pp k Diversion To ee Sunnyside 2005: 79 KAF (55%) increase Cr Dam Pasco ut97 Grandview Richland Mabton Y ak Kennewick R im a iver 1994: 93-166 KAF (70-125%) increase s k u t e 2005: 163-196 KAF (263-316%) increase a e r S C 1994: 162-235 KAF (128-186%) increase 2005: 234-267 KAF (347-397%) increase ¨¦§82

KLICKITAT COUNTY 1994: 99-222 KAF (42-93%) increase 2005: 151-184 KAF (103-126%) increase 730 0 8 16 ut 395 Miles 84 ut Goldendale ¨¦§ Q:\Jobs\070402-01_Yakima_River_Basin\Maps\2009_11\Phase_I_and_II_Flow_Imprv_Spring.mxd ckiblingerQ:\Jobs\070402-01_Yakima_River_Basin\Maps\2009_11\Phase_I_and_II_Flow_Imprv_Spring.mxd 12/08/2009 PM 5:13 Exhibit 9 Spring Existing Flow Conditions and Phase I and II Improvements ut97LEGEND Dams SNOHOMISH Chelan Rivers, Creeks Index COUNTY CHELAN COUNTY WaterMansfield Bodies KING COUNTY Yakima River Basin Boundary Skykomish ut2 Yakama Nation Entiat Interstate Highway 1994: 33 KAF (87%) increase ¦¨§ Waterville 2005: 33 KAF (90%) increase ut US Highway C Coulee City l e R E Leavenworth City Boundaries iv lu ut2 e m r County Boundary Keechelus Dam Cashmere DOUGLAS COUNTY Current Summer Flow Issues/Needs

d l k ut97 Flow is greatly reduced/needs more flow o e Wenatchee e 90 G r Soap Lake ¨¦§ C Jack Flow is reduced/needs more flow ek Rock Island K Cre

a Flow is increased/needs less flow A A

R c I i h Ephrata

v B e R e s k

E r k M Flow is greatly increased/needs less flow s N u a e V

n U

I a e e u Kachess Dam C L Tea r R

na w re m w C e O Riv a S k e C Easton Roslyn r y Quincy Diversion i g Cle Elum B ek k Dam e e r e k e GRANT COUNTY C l t e r t k Moses Lake i e C ane e r T u m

L e

n C Cree r

k a C

N m a Li r 90 e c tt e h l § l ¨¦ e e c s o George R e C PIERCE iv e n 1994: 17-80 KAF (4-20%) decrease Cle Elum Dam o k

e R r s e l i e COUNTY r 2005: 17-100 KAF (4-23%) decrease W C 5:18 PM PM 5:18 Increased Flow a n N Kittitas ic a Wanapum Dam er R c h m r i h as e v e st Y A iv e a R s an a y g r M k r n ree k r i C i e k p m h e r e m e Bumping a C r Royal City u iv C B R R C Lake i v O Roza e R L r I U Dam V Diversion M E Priest R B Dam I ¨¦§82 A Rapids ADAMS Dam Tieton Dam KITTITAS COUNTY COUNTY Mattawa I n LEWIS Cr n d ieto e i T YAKIMA COUNTY FRANKLIN a er Tieton e v COUNTY n Ri k COUNTY ut12 Tieton Rimrock Lake C Diversion o w e C ich Dam re BENTON COUNTY ek Yakima Moxee Sunnyside Diversion Ahtanu m Creek Wapato Dam (Parker) Diversion Wanawish

A

I

Dam Diversion B Wapato R

E M

Flow_Imprv_Summer_Before_Flip_Flop.mxd Flow_Imprv_Summer_Before_Flip_Flop.mxd ckiblinger 12/08/2009 nis h Dam V

e U p Harrah I p L o ek R

re O T C Toppenish C Prosser 1994: 46 KAF (39%) increase Sunnyside Diversion 2005: 46 KAF (34%) increase Dam Pasco Sa tu s Grandview Cr eek Richland Mabton Y ak Kennewick R im a iver 1994: 43-116 KAF (76-206%) increase 2005: 71-104 KAF (126-184%) increase 1994: 49-122 KAF (59-146%) increase 82 2005: 59-92 KAF (43-68%) increase ¨¦§

KLICKITAT COUNTY t97 0 8 16 u ut730 395 Miles 84 ut Goldendale ¨¦§ Q:\Jobs\070402-01_Yakima_River_Basin\Maps\2009_11\Phase_I_and_II_ Exhibit 10 Summer Existing Flow Conditions and Phase I and II Improvements Table 1 Estimated Water Supply Benefits for 1992 –1994 Phase I Projects (0 –10 Years) (Note: kaf = 1,000 acre -feet) Estimated Increase in Total Water Supply Add’l Available in Historical Drought Years Muni Estimated Flow Benefits for 1994 (3rd Year of Drought) (Proration Increase) Supply April- April-Sept. Add’l July-Oct. Sept. Flow @ Plan Element 1992 1993 1994 Volume Flow @ Flow Benefits Flow @ Yakima Supplied Umtanum Parker Mouth Large Agricultural 36 kaf 16 kaf Improve flow in portions of Yakima and 0 n/a increase Small increase 0 Conservation (2%) (1%) Naches rivers (64 kaf) Municipal To be To be Assume conserved water used for n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Conservation determined determined demands associated with growth Improve flow in portions of Yakima Wymer Reservoir Large Large 80 kaf Large increase River, Cle Elum River, and tributaries w/Thorp Pump 0 0 n/a increase decrease (7%) (0-80 kaf) (Reecer, Wilson, Naneum, Cherry, Station (162 kaf) (0-80 kaf) (67-135 kaf) Coleman creeks) Bumping Reservoir 40 kaf 66 kaf Increase Increase Small Increase flows through Bumping, 0 n/a Enlargement (3%) (6%) (28 kaf) (28 kaf) increase Naches, and Yakima rivers (160- to 190-kaf) n/a Keechelus-to- n/a (included n/a (included n/a (included n/a (included n/a (included Improve summer flows below n/a (included Kachess Pipeline below) below) below) below) below) Keechelus (11 miles) below) Reservoir Inactive Storage 33 kaf 33 kaf Increase Increase Small Improve flow in portions of Yakima 0 n/a (100 kaf (3%) (3%) (17 kaf) (17 kaf) increase River extracted) Improve flows below Wapatox Conveyance diversion (70 cfs for 7.4 miles); Improvements at n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a or below Naches-Selah Irrigation Wapatox District diversion (1.3 additional miles)

Subordinate Improve spring flows below Roza Dam n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Roza Power (50 to 300 cfs, 14.6 miles)

*The tables uses assumptions for new storage use during historical droughts. The new storage was not all used in the first year of a multi-year drought and was therefore not added to the TWSA in those years. However storage was used in following drought years and added to TWSA for the year used. The actual volume of water released and pattern of releases from storage during droughts will depend on rules adopted when the project is implemented.

Attachment A Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page A-12 Table 1 Estimated Water Supply Benefits for 1992 –1994 Phase I Projects (0 –10 Years) (Note: kaf = 1,000 acre -feet) Estimated Increase in Total Water Supply Add’l Available in Historical Drought Years Muni Estimated Flow Benefits for 1994 (3rd Year of Drought) (Proration Increase) Supply April- April-Sept. Add’l July-Oct. Sept. Flow @ Plan Element 1992 1993 1994 Volume Flow @ Flow Benefits Flow @ Yakima Supplied Umtanum Parker Mouth Subordinate Improve spring flows below Chandler n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Chandler Power (zero to 300 cfs, 11.3 miles)

Raise Cle Elum Improve flow in portions of Yakima Dam Pool 3 ft. 0 0 0 n/a 0 0 0 River 15 kaf (assume 15 kaf) Modify KRD Main Improve flows in Big, Little, and/or n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Canal/South Manastash creeks Branch

Enough water to make a significant contribution to Market-based Small water management flexibility in the basin. n/a 0 0 n/a Water Transfers increase

Municipal ASR – n/a n/a n/a 5-10 kaf n/a n/a n/a n/a City of Yakima

Small reduction in flip-flop releases; No change Small Groundwater 20-50 kaf 20-50 kaf 20-50 kaf improve flow in some tributaries n/a or small 0 increase Infiltration (2-4%) (2-4%) (2-4%) (Wilson/Naneum), potential temperature increase (10-20 kaf) improvements in lower Yakima

COMBINED Large Large Improve flows through Bumping Large BENEFITS OF 129-159 kaf 36-66 kaf 199-229 kaf 5-10 kaf increase increase River, Naches River, portions of decrease PHASE 1 (10-12%) (3-5%) (18-20%) increase (109-189 (Approx. 50 upper and lower Yakima River, (47-125 kaf) PROJECTS kaf) to 130 kaf) upper Yakima tributaries

*The tables uses assumptions for new storage use during historical droughts. The new storage was not all used in the first year of a multi-year drought and was therefore not added to the TWSA in those years. However storage was used in following drought years and added to TWSA for the year used. The actual volume of water released and pattern of releases from storage during droughts will depend on rules adopted when the project is implemented.

Attachment A Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page A-13

Table 2 Estimated Water Supply Benefits for 1992–1994 Phase II Projects (11–30+ Years) (Note: kaf = 1,000 acre-feet)

Estimated Increase in Total Water Supply Available in rd Estimated Flow Benefits for 1994 (3 Year of Drought) Historical Drought Years (Proration Increase) April-Sept. April-Sept. flow July-Oct. 1992 1993 1994 Flow @ @ Yakima Flow @ Flow Benefits Parker Mouth Umtanum Improve flows through Large Large increase Large Bumping River, Naches River, 129-159 kaf 36-66 kaf 199-229 kaf increase Phase I Benefits (Approx. 50-130 decrease (47 portions of upper and lower (10-12%) (3-5%) (18-20%) (109-189 kaf) to 125 kaf) Yakima River, upper Yakima kaf) tributaries Additional Water 59 kaf 26 kaf 8 kaf Small incr. Small Increased flow in portions of Small increase Conservation (4%) (3%) (1%) (4 kaf) decrease Yakima and Naches rivers Draw Water from 66 kaf Increase Small Improve flow in portions of Inactive Storage 0 0 Increase (33 kaf) (6%) (33 kaf) increase Yakima River (200 kaf used)

Additional Water Enough water to make a significant contribution to water Small Markets and Water management flexibility and increase the economic 0 0 n/a increase Banking efficiency of drought response in the basin.

Small reduction in flip-flop Additional releases; improve flow in some 50-60 kaf 50-60 kaf 50-60 kaf No change Groundwater Small tributaries (Wilson/ additional additional additional or small 0 Infiltration decrease Naneum); potential temp. (4-5%) (4-5%) (4-5%) increase (total 80-100 kaf) improvements in lower Yakima Pump Water from 33-167 kaf 33-167 kaf 33-167 kaf Increase Increase Improve flow in portions of Columbia River 0 (3-13%) (3-13%) (3-13%) (17-83 kaf) (17-83 kaf) Yakima River (50-250 kaf) Improve flows through COMBINED Large Large increase Large Bumping River, Naches BENEFITS OF 271-445 kaf 145-319 kaf 356-530 kaf increase (Approx. 105-245 decrease River, portions of upper and PHASE I and II (21-34%) (13-26%) (32-45%) (163-309 kaf) (47-125 kaf) lower Yakima River, upper PROJECTS kaf) Yakima tributaries *The tables uses assumptions for new storage use during historical droughts. The new storage was not all used in the first year of a multi-year drought and was therefore not added to the TWSA in those years. However storage was used in following drought years and added to TWSA for the year used. The actual volume of water released and pattern of releases from storage during droughts will depend on rules adopted when the project is implemented.

Attachment A Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page A-14

Table 3 Estimated Water Supply Benefits for 2005 Phase I Projects (0–10 Years) (Note: kaf = 1,000 acre-feet) Overall Supply (Drought Year – Additional Flow (Drought Year – 2005) 2005) Muni Supply Total Water Supply April-Sept. Flow July-Oct. % Add’l Volume April-Sept. Plan Element Available (estimated @ Yakima Flow @ Flow Benefits Proration Supplied Flow @ Parker or assumed) Mouth Umtanum Agricultural 4-7% Large increase Small Improve flow in portions of 54-83 kaf increase n/a Small increase Conservation increase (62 kaf) decrease Yakima and Naches rivers Municipal Assume conserved water used To be determined n/a To be determined n/a n/a n/a Conservation for growth Improve flow in portions of Yakima River, Cle Elum Wymer Reservoir Large River, and tributaries (Reecer, 5% Large increase Large increase w/Thorp Pump 60 kaf increase n/a decrease Wilson, Naneum, Cherry, increase (60 kaf) (60 kaf) Station (162 kaf) (67-135 kaf) Coleman creeks); would provide improvement to north-side tributaries Small increase 66 kaf (assuming 100 Increase (33 kaf) Bumping Reservoir Increase (33 kaf) (assuming Increase flows through kaf withdrawal, 2/3 5% (used at Enlargement n/a (used at discretion add’l Bumping, Naches, and water supply, 1/3 fish increase discretion of fish (160- to 190-kaf) of fish agencies) releases Yakima rivers flow) agencies) from upper reservoir) n/a n/a Keechelus-to- n/a (included n/a (included Improve summer flows below n/a (included below) (included n/a (included Kachess Pipeline below) below) Keechelus (11 miles) below) below) Reservoir Inactive 5% Increase Increase Small Improve flow in portions of Storage (100 kaf 66 kaf increase n/a increase (33 kaf) (33 kaf) increase Yakima River extracted) Improve flows below Wapatox diversion (70 cfs for Conveyance 7.4 miles); Improvements at n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a or below Naches-Selah Wapatox Irrigation District diversion (1.3 additional miles) *The tables uses assumptions for new storage use during historical droughts. The new storage was not all used in the first year of a multi-year drought and was therefore not added to the TWSA in those years. However storage was used in following drought years and added to TWSA for the year used. The actual volume of water released and pattern of releases from storage during droughts will depend on rules adopted when the project is implemented.

Attachment A Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page A-15 Table 3 Estimated Water Supply Benefits for 2005 Phase I Projects (0–10 Years) (Note: kaf = 1,000 acre-feet) Overall Supply (Drought Year – Additional Flow (Drought Year – 2005) 2005) Muni Supply Total Water Supply April-Sept. Flow July-Oct. % Add’l Volume April-Sept. Plan Element Available (estimated @ Yakima Flow @ Flow Benefits Proration Supplied Flow @ Parker or assumed) Mouth Umtanum Improve spring flows below Subordinate Roza n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Roza Dam (50 to 300 cfs, Power 14.6 miles) Improve spring flows below Subordinate n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Chandler (zero to 300 cfs, Chandler Power 11.3 miles) Raise Cle Elum Small increase Small increase Improve flow in portions of Dam 0 0 n/a 0 (15 kaf) (15 kaf) Yakima River 3 ft. (assume 15 kaf) Modify KRD Main Improve flows in Big, Little, n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Canal/South Branch and/or Manastash creeks Market-based Water Enough water to make a significant contribution to water Small No change No change n/a Transfers management flexibility in the basin. increase Municipal ASR – n/a n/a 5-10 kaf n/a n/a n/a n/a City of Yakima Small reduction in flip-flop releases; improve flow in Small Groundwater 2-4% No change or some tributaries 20-50 kaf n/a No change increase Infiltration increase slight increase (Wilson/Naneum); potential (10-20 kaf) temperature improvements in lower Yakima

Improve flows through COMBINED Large Bumping River, Naches BENEFITS OF 21-26% 5-10 kaf Large Increase Large increase 266-325 kaf increase decrease River, portions of upper PHASE 1 increase increase (203 kaf) (141 kaf) (47-125 kaf) and lower Yakima River, PROJECTS upper Yakima tributaries

*The tables uses assumptions for new storage use during historical droughts. The new storage was not all used in the first year of a multi-year drought and was therefore not added to the TWSA in those years. However storage was used in following drought years and added to TWSA for the year used. The actual volume of water released and pattern of releases from storage during droughts will depend on rules adopted when the project is implemented.

Attachment A Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page A-16

Table 4 Estimated Water Supply Benefits for 2005 Phase II Projects (11 –30+ Years) (Note: kaf = 1,000 acre -feet)

Overall Supply (Drought Year – Additional Muni Flow (Drought Year – 2005) 2005) Supply Total Water Supply April-Sept. Flow July-Oct. Available Add’l Volume April-Sept. Flow % Proration @ Yakima Flow @ Flow Benefits (estimated or Supplied @ Parker Mouth Umtanum assumed) Improve flows through Large Bumping River, Naches River, 21-26% Large Increase Large increase Phase I Benefits 266-325 kaf increase 5-10 kaf increase decrease (47­ portions of upper and lower increase (203 kaf) (141 kaf) 125 kaf) Yakima River, upper Yakima tributaries Additional Water Small Increased flow in portions of 15-54 kaf increase 2-4% increase n/a Increase (3 kaf) Small increase Conservation decrease Yakima and Naches rivers Municipal Assume conserved water used To be determined n/a To be determined n/a n/a n/a Conservation for growth Draw Water from Small Improve flow in portions of Inactive Storage 66 kaf increase 7% increase n/a Increase (33 kaf) Increase (33 kaf) increase Yakima River (200 kaf used) Enough water to make a significant contribution to water Market-based Water management flexibility and increase the economic Small No change No change n/a Transfers efficiency of drought response in the basin. increase

Small reduction in flip-flop Additional releases, improve flow in some Groundwater No change or Increase 50-60 kaf 4-5% increase n/a No change tributaries (Wilson/Naneum), Infiltration slight increase (25-30 kaf) potential temperature (total 80-100 kaf) improvements in lower Yakima Pump Water from 3-13% Increase Increase Improve flow in portions of Columbia River 33-167 kaf increase n/a 0 increase (17-83 kaf) (17-83 kaf) Yakima River (50-250 kaf) Improve flows through COMBINED Bumping River, Naches BENEFITS OF 37-55% Large Increase Large increase Decrease 430-672 kaf increase 5-10 kaf increase River, portions of upper and PHASE I & II increase (256-322 kaf) (191-257 kaf) (17-80 kaf) lower Yakima River, upper PROJECTS Yakima tributaries *The tables uses assumptions for new storage use during historical droughts. The new storage was not all used in the first year of a multi-year drought and was therefore not added to the TWSA in those years. However storage was used in following drought years and added to TWSA for the year used. The actual volume of water released and pattern of releases from storage during droughts will depend on rules adopted when the project is implemented.

Attachment A Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page A-17 Attachment B Workgroup Members

This attachment provides the names of the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project (YRBWEP) workgroup members and their alternates.

Workgroup Member Name and Workgroup Member Alternate Agency Title Name and Title Steve Malloch Michael Garrity American Rivers National Wildlife Federation Washington Conservation Director Senior Water Program Manager Adam Fyall Max Benitz Benton County Community Development Benton County Commissioner Coordinator Bureau of Reclamation – Columbia- Dawn Wiedmeier Wendy Christensen Cascades Area Office Acting Area Manager Technical Projects Program Manager Bill Lover Dave Brown City of Yakima City Councilman Water/Irrigation Manager Scott Revell Kennewick Irrigation District n/a Planning Manager Mark McClain Paul Jewell Kittitas County County Commissioner County Commissioner Urban Eberhart Ken Hasbrouck Kittitas Reclamation District Board Member Manager Dale Bambrick NOAA Fisheries Service n/a Eastern Washington Director Ron VanGundy Ric Valicoff Roza Irrigation District Policy Director Director – Division No. 1 Jim Trull Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District n/a Secretary/Treasurer USFWS – Mid-Columbia River Jeff Thomas n/a Fishery Resources Office Fisheries Biologist Washington Department of Brad Avy Lee Faulconer Agriculture Policy Assistant to the Director Policy Assistant to the Director Washington Department of Ecology – Derek Sandison n/a Office of Columbia River Director Washington Department of Fish and Jeff Tayer John Easterbrooks Wildlife Regional Director Fisheries Biologist Phil Rigdon Tom Ring Yakama Nation Director, Natural Resources Hydrogeologist Yakama Nation – Yakama/Klickitat David Fast Mark Johnston Fisheries Project Fisheries Biologist Fisheries Biologist Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Alex Conley n/a Recovery Board Executive Director Sid Morrison Charlie de la Chapelle Yakima Basin Storage Alliance Chairman Vice Chair Mike Leita Rand Elliott Yakima County County Commissioner County Commissioner Rick Dieker Jim Milton Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District Secretary/Treasurer/Manager Director

Attachment B Prepared by HDR Page B-1 Attachment C Preliminary Integrated Water Resource Management Plan Project Descriptions

This attachment was prepared as an element of the YRBWEP 2009 Workgroup Report. It summarizes each project or program included in the preliminary IWRMP. At this time, none of the projects or programs have been fully defined, and some are at a conceptual stage only. The summaries below present current status of the following:

Section C1 – Fish Passage at Storage Reservoirs

Section C2 – Structural/Operational Changes  Conveyance Improvements at Wapatox  Subordinate Diversions for Power at Roza and Chandler  Kittitas Reclamation District (KRD) Main Canal and South Branch Modifications  Raise Pool Level at Cle Elum Dam  Keechelus-to-Kachess Pipeline  Evaluate Roza Diversion Alternate Supply and Associated Dam Removal

Section C3 – Surface Storage  Wymer Reservoir  Bumping Reservoir Enlargement  Reservoir Inactive Storage  Columbia River Pump/Storage

Section C4 – Groundwater Storage  Municipal Aquifer Storage and Recovery  Groundwater Infiltration Prior to Storage Control

Section C5 – Fish Habitat Enhancements  Mainstem Floodplain Restoration Program  Tributaries Habitat Enhancement Program

Section C6 – Enhanced Water Conservation  Agricultural Water Conservation  Municipal/Domestic Conservation

Section C7 – Market Based Reallocation of Water Resources/Transfers

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-1 Section C1 Fish Passage at Storage Reservoirs

Summary Construct fish-passage facilities for adult and juvenile salmonids and/or bull trout at all major dams in the Yakima basin.

Phases Phase 1 – Cle Elum, Bumping, and Clear Lake Dams. Phase 2 – Tieton, Keechelus, and Kachess Dams.

Purpose Restore anadromous salmonid access to habitat above the five existing large storage reservoirs and provide upstream and downstream passage for resident fish, including bull trout. Provide upstream passage for bull trout above Clear Lake. Passage would be constrained by the following:  There would be no changes to current operations (i.e., quantity and timing of flow releases), but the flow pathway(s) would change to accommodate operation of the new downstream fish passage facilities  Fish-passage facilities could be designed and operated within the existing operational considerations and constraints  There would be no impacts on “total water supply available” (TWSA)  Operations would continue to serve existing Reclamation contracts

Description Phase 1 – Cle Elum, Bumping, and Clear Lake Dams--Install upstream and downstream passage for adult and juvenile salmonids (except Clear Lake – upstream passage for bull trout only).

Phase 2 – Tieton, Keechelus, and Kachess Dams--Install upstream and downstream passage for adult and juvenile salmonids based upon evaluation studies.

Benefits (Preliminary Estimate) Providing for unimpeded adult and juvenile fish migration past the existing storage dams in the Yakima basin would increase the extent of coho, steelhead, and Chinook habitat in the basin, allow for the reintroduction of extirpated sockeye runs, and allow expanded migrations and genetic interchange for listed bull trout and other native fish. The abundance, life history, and genetic diversity of these and other focal species should increase after fish passage is provided. This would significantly improve prospects for recovering fish populations to levels that can sustain harvest and are resilient to catastrophic events and the potential impacts of climate change.

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-2 Estimates of potential anadromous fish production have been made for Bumping and Cle Elum Reservoirs. Reclamation (2007a) estimated potential coho production capacity of habitat above Bumping Reservoir at 422 to 486 adults annually. Passage at Cle Elum would provide access to habitat capable of supporting 1,540 adult coho (Reclamation 2007c). Reclamation estimated that Cle Elum Reservoir could produce 30,000 to 50,000 adult sockeye (Reclamation 2007d), while Bumping Reservoir could produce 10,000 to 17,000 adult sockeye (Reclamation 2007b).

Restoring connectivity among isolated populations of bull trout would allow for dispersion of fish among local populations, providing a mechanism to support weaker populations, or reestablishing those that have been extirpated. It would also allow gene flow among populations, which prevents the loss of genetic variation. This is important for survival in variable environments and decreases the probability of local extirpations.

Cost (Preliminary Estimate) Cle Elum Reservoir – $96 million (based on January 2008 cost estimate and pending update from Value Engineering study underway)

Bumping Reservoir – $27 million (based on January 2008 cost estimate) for providing passage at existing dam. If Bumping small enlargement proceeds, then passage at the new or enlarged dam would be included as part of this project.

Clear Lake – $2 million (preliminary estimate). This estimate needs further definition and refinement in 2010.

Subtotal - $125 million. Could range up to $150 million with contingencies.

Tieton, Keechelus, and Kachess – Not developed. Preliminary costs range from $80 to 150 million. Substantial work is needed to improve this estimate.

Issues/Uncertainties  More detailed evaluations are needed at Tieton, Keechelus, and Kachess Dams, including design option, costs, and expected benefits to fish.  Use initial experiences at Cle Elum and Bumping Reservoirs to evaluate: 1) The success and scale of sockeye reintroduction. 2) The extent to which steelhead, Chinook, and coho successfully make use of the reservoirs and upstream habitats. All of these species may perform better or worse than anticipated, and monitoring will be required to track this. 3) The degree to which provision of passage at Bumping Dam facilitates changes in migratory patterns and genetic connectivity for bull trout. Evaluating the outcomes of passage at Bumping Reservoir on bull trout should include baseline monitoring prior to improving passage.

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-3 The design and cost of providing passage at Clear Lake Dam will be determined based on the currently ongoing evaluation of bull trout passage conditions.

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-4 Section C2 Structural/Operational Changes

Conveyance Improvements at Wapatox

Summary Modify the conveyance system for the former Wapatox Power Plant to reduce water needed to convey irrigation water.

Phase Phase 1.

Purpose Improve streamflow in a 7- to 9-mile reach of the lower Naches River and possibly improve floodplain function.

Description Reclamation acquired the Wapatox Power Plant and diversion in 2003 in order to devote the associated 350 cfs water right to streamflow purposes. The Wapatox diversion also supplies water to several irrigators, and therefore the diversion and associated conveyance system remain active. The conveyance system requires substantial flow to deliver water to irrigators, limiting streamflow benefits of the acquisition. Modifying the conveyance system would allow the full Reclamation water right to be left in the Naches River, while enabling irrigators to receive their supplies.

Options also include consolidating the Wapatox diversion with the Naches-Selah Irrigation District diversion and using the Wapatox diversion to supply the City of Yakima water treatment plant and the Gleed ditch. Each of these options would increase the environmental benefits of the project.

Benefits (Preliminary Estimate) Improve flows below the Wapatox diversion by approximately 70 cfs in a 7.4-mile reach (the benefitted reach would be 1.3 miles longer if the Wapatox diversion is also consolidated with the Naches-Selah Irrigation District diversion).

An additional benefit would include floodplain function enhancement if the project includes replacement of the existing City of Yakima water treatment plant and Gleed ditch diversions.

Cost (Preliminary Estimate) Cost is estimated at $2 to 4 million.

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-5 Issues/Uncertainties This is a relatively simple project with project features that are well understood. The primary uncertainties are related to potential consolidation with the additional diversions described above.

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-6 Subordinate Diversions for Power at Roza and Chandler Power Plants

Summary Reduce or eliminate water diversions for power generation at Roza Dam and Chandler Power Plant during March during outmigration of juvenile anadromous fish in March, April and May. Phase Phase 1.

Purpose Improve streamflow for spring outmigration of spring Chinook, sockeye and coho. Reduce water diversions for power generation by irrigation districts that can inadvertently entrap fish in the power plant canals.

Description Water is diverted at two locations on the Middle and Lower Yakima River to produce power for the Roza Irrigation District and Bonneville Power Administration’s (BPA’s) power grid. These two projects involve reducing diversions during spring months in order to leave water in the Yakima River to help smolt outmigration from the Yakima basin to the Pacific Ocean. Diversions would be curtailed when flows in the Yakima River drop below certain levels. This would expand an operational practice that has already been used.

Note: the Roza Roller Gate project is not included because it is currently being implemented. This project may also help reduce a portion of the smolt outmigration flow need that would be met through subordination.

Benefits (Preliminary Estimate) For conditions similar to the drought year 2005, estimates of flow improvements are:  Improve spring flows in a 14.6-mile reach below Roza Dam by 50 to 300 cfs;  Improve spring flows in an 11.3-mile reach below Prosser Dam by 0 to 300 cfs.

Cost (Preliminary Estimate) This project does not have capital costs; however, revenue from power production would be reduced, and/or costs would be incurred for power purchases to replace power currently generated at these locations.

Issues/Uncertainties Subordination of power at Roza power plant can have long term cost consequences for the Roza district that must be resolved for this to be implemented. Complete shut down of Roza power plant would have immediate and substantial cost consequences for the Roza District. Reclamation is contractually obligated through the Roza power plant to provide all present and

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-7 future pumping power needs for the District. For additional subordination to take place. Existing agreements between Roza, Reclamation and BPA would need to be reviewed and possibly modified.

Reclamation, BPA and Kennewick Irrigation District would also need to coordinate on Chandler Power Plant operational arrangements.

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-8 Kittitas Reclamation District Main Canal and South Branch Modifications

Summary Replace open laterals on the Main Canal and South Branch Canal with pressured pipe systems to allow water discharge directly to tributary creeks or to supply water users currently diverting from tributary creeks.

Phase Phase 1.

Purpose Increase instream flow in Big, Little, Taneum, and Manastash Creeks by improving laterals within the KRD system.

Description Four tributaries within the KRD have instream flow problems that could be addressed through changes in KRD infrastructure and operations – Taneum and Manastash Creeks crossing the South Branch Canal, and Big and Little Creeks crossing the Main Canal. KRD currently augments flows in those streams with operational spills and occasionally conveys and discharges water to provide instream flows at Reclamation’s request.

Five laterals on the Main Canal (M4.9, M6.1, M7.7, M13.6, and M16.9) and five laterals on the South Branch Canal (SB9.9, SB13.8, SB14.3, SB16.7 and SB17.6) are candidates for replacement with pipe. The laterals would be converted to pressurized systems, reducing seepage and spill at the tail end of the lateral. Increasing capacities of the KRD Main Canal and South Branch Canal laterals would enhance tributary flows by allowing additional discharge to the creeks and/or supplying water users currently diverting from the creeks.

Benefits (Preliminary Estimate) The volume of water that could be supplied from this project is not precisely known, but is estimated to be 5,400 acre-feet (14.9 cfs on average) throughout the irrigation season). An estimate of benefits to each stream is: Big Creek: 4 cfs Little Creek: 3 cfs Taneum Creek: 4 cfs Manastash Creek: 4 cfs

Cost (Preliminary Estimate) The estimated cost for KRD Main Canal and South Branch Canal modifications is $8 to 12 million.

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-9 Issues/Uncertainties This project has not been studied in detail at this time. One issue requiring analysis will be determination of instream flow benefits to tributaries.

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-10 Raise Pool Level at Cle Elum Dam

Summary Raise pool level at Cle Elum Dam 3 feet by modifying the spillway gates and use the additional stored water to enhance streamflows.

Phase Phase 1.

Purpose Provide an additional 14,600 acre-feet of storage to enhance streamflows in the Yakima basin.

Description The reservoir pool level behind Cle Elum Dam would be raised 3 feet by constructing stiffened flatboards (3 feet high by 37 feet long) on the five radial gates of the spillway on the existing dam. Riprap would be placed along the shoreline to provide erosion control from the higher water levels. Section 1206 of the YRBWEP Act authorizes the additional water to be used exclusively for instream flows for fish and wildlife.

Raising the reservoir level would inundate additional land around the reservoir. Reclamation conducted preliminary real estate evaluations in 2002 and estimated the cost of acquiring inundated properties.

Benefits (Preliminary Estimate) Use of the additional water is restricted to instream flows for fish and wildlife; therefore, there would be no improvements to TWSA.

The greatest flow benefits occur in average years when the additional storage can be refilled and released for instream flow benefit. The entire 14,600 acre-feet would be released on a schedule recommended by fish agencies or by the System Operations Advisory Committee (SOAC). During multiple drought years, the additional storage is not refilled and instream benefits would not occur. As a comparison to other elements, the estimated flow benefits for the third year of a drought (1994) are shown below: April – September flows at Parker: small increase April – September flows at Yakima mouth: small increase July – October flow at Umtanum: no increase

Cost (Preliminary Estimate) Costs are estimated to be $20 to 40 million.

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-11 Issues/Uncertainties Issues and uncertainties associated with raising the level of Cle Elum Reservoir include:  Need to coordinate raising the reservoir level with installation of fish passage facilities which are currently undergoing environmental review.

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-12 Keechelus-to-Kachess Pipeline

Summary Transfer water from Keechelus Reservoir to Kachess Reservoir through approximately 5 miles of pipeline.

Phase Phase 1.

Purpose Increase water supply and improve streamflows in the Upper Basin.

Description The watershed contributing flows to Keechelus Reservoir produces substantially more water in proportion to reservoir storage volume than the watershed contributing to Kachess Reservoir. If water could be piped from Keechelus to Kachess, the storage volume available at Kachess could be used to capture water that must now be spilled from Keechelus. In addition, this project offers an opportunity to reduce high summer-time flows in the Keechelus River that can impair fish habitat.

This project offers particular value if combined with the Reservoir Inactive Storage project at Kachess.

Benefits (Preliminary Estimate) Water supply benefits of this project have been included in the estimates provided for the Reservoir Inactive Storage at Kachess Reservoir (see previous project).

This project offers significant additional streamflow benefits in the 11 miles of the Keechelus River downstream of Keechelus Reservoir to the confluence with the Yakima River mainstem compared with the Reservoir Inactive Storage project without the pipeline. In this reach, high flows could be reduced by diverting water out of Keechelus Reservoir and into Kachess Reservoir.

Cost (Preliminary Estimate) A preliminary cost estimate is $55 to 65 million. Substantial work is needed to improve this estimate.

Issues/Uncertainties This is a relatively straightforward project in comparison with the others addressed in this report. Further analysis would be required to determine the optimal size of the pipeline, including consideration of hydrologic characteristics of the two reservoir watersheds. There may be potential to synchronize this project with I-90 road and wildlife overpass construction work in a

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-13 manner that may allow for reduced environmental impact and the opportunity for improving wildlife habitat.

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-14 Evaluate Roza Diversion Alternate Supply and Associated Dam Removal

Summary Evaluate feeding the Roza canal through an alternative diversion and replacement supply (e.g Wymer Reservoir and/or Columbia River Pumping and Storage), and associated removal of Roza dam from the mainstem Yakima River.

Phase To be determined, depending on relationship to alternate supply projects.

Purpose Improve fish passage within the mainstem Yakima River.

Description Roza Dam on the mainstem Yakima River provides the diversion structure for the Roza Irrigation District main canal. The dam affects migration of anadromous fish upstream and downstream. The preliminary IWRMP includes consideration of constructing Wymer Reservoir and/or direct pumping of water from the Columbia River. It is conceivable that these projects could be developed in a way that allows Roza Irrigation District supply to be delivered through new conveyance systems that would make it possible to remove the mainstem dam. This element of the preliminary IWRMP therefore includes evaluation of this possibility, in conjunction with consideration of alternative supplies.

Benefits (Preliminary Estimate) Detailed benefits have not been analyzed at this time..

Cost (Preliminary Estimate) To be determined.

Issues/Uncertainties This concept is highly preliminary at this time. The feasibility, cost and operational aspects have not been assessed for an alternate supply to deliver water to Roza Irrigation District consistent with other elements of the preliminary IWRMP.

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-15 Section C3 Surface Storage

Wymer Reservoir

Summary Construct a 162,500 acre-foot off-channel reservoir on Lmuma Creek filled by a pump station located at the dam and/or on the Yakima River near Thorp with a canal/pipeline around Kittitas Valley, including power generation. (Also could include variation of direct pump from Columbia River to Wymer, and connection to other potential off-channel reservoir locations south of Wymer, such as Selah or Burbank Creek or directly into Roza Canal).

Phase Phase 1 (with potential variations that could be added in Phase 2).

Purpose Improve water supply to proratables during drought years; improve flows in portions of the Yakima River, Cle Elum River, and Kittitas Valley tributaries (Reecer, Wilson, Naneum, Cherry, and Coleman Creeks); and generate power.

Description Construct a 450-foot-high dam on Lmuma Creek with a storage capacity of 162,500 acre-feet. Water would be pumped into the reservoir from the Yakima River during winter and spring. Reclamation evaluated a Wymer Reservoir option in its Storage Study with the reservoir filled by direct pumping from the Yakima River at the dam and/or near Thorp. The pumping costs for that option were considered too high.

An option for filling the reservoir using a pump station constructed on the Yakima River near Thorp is included. Water would be pumped to an expanded Kittitas Reclamation District (KRD) North Branch Canal or a separate pipeline generally following the route of the North Branch Canal. A tunnel would carry water from the Badger Pocket area through Manastash Ridge to a point above Wymer Reservoir. A hydroelectric plant would be constructed at the outlet of Wymer Dam. The energy generated at the plant would approximately offset the energy required by the pumping plant at Thorp.

The KRD North Branch Canal would need to be enlarged to provide capacity to fill the reservoir and other improvements would be needed to KRD facilities to accommodate the additional flow. The North Branch Canal would also be used to convey water in the summer. This would reduce the current high flows in the Yakima River between Thorp and Wymer. Additional flow benefits would include reduced high flows in the Cle Elum River in summer. Improvements to the North Branch Canal would also allow water diversions in tributary streams to be reduced, improving tributary streamflow conditions.

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-16 Benefits (Preliminary Estimate) This project would provide 80,000 acre-feet for proratable irrigation water supply in drought years and 82,500 acre-feet for fish enhancement purposes.

Examples of yields for a 3-year drought (1992 to 1994 conditions) are: Increase in TWSA in Year 1: none Increase in TWSA in Year 2: none Increase in TWSA in Year 3: 80,000 acre-feet

The estimated flow benefits for the third year of a drought (1994) are shown below: April – September flows at Parker: large increase April – September flows at Yakima mouth: large increase July – October flow at Umtanum: large decrease

These examples are intended solely to illustrate the expected scale of benefits and are based on specific operational assumptions. Benefits could be adjusted across years or between purposes, depending on operational rules adopted for the reservoir.

Cost (Preliminary Estimate) A preliminary estimate of cost is $1.2 to 1.6 billion, with mitigation estimated at an additional $10 million. Substantial work is needed to improve this estimate.

Issues/Uncertainties Plans to fill the reservoir using the canal/pipeline option from near Thorp have not been evaluated in detail. This will require investigation and design of a conveyance system from Thorp.

Consideration is also needed regarding additional variations with Columbia River pump and connection with other potential off-channel reservoirs.

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-17 Bumping Reservoir Enlargement

Summary Expand existing Bumping Reservoir to a 160,000 or 190,000 acre-foot reservoir, depending on location.

Phase Phase 1.

Purpose Improve water supply to proratable users during drought years and increase flows in the Bumping and Naches Rivers and in the mainstem Yakima River below Parker gage.

Description Bumping Reservoir is one of the five major storage reservoirs in the Yakima Project. It was completed in 1910 with a storage capacity of 33,700 acre-feet. Enlargement of Bumping Reservoir has been evaluated in numerous studies for over 50 years. Expanding the reservoir to 458,000 acre-feet has been proposed by Reclamation. Ecology’s FEIS on the Integrated Water Resource Management Alternative considered a proposal for a smaller expansion, to 200,000 acre-feet.

To minimize impacts on prime bull trout spawning areas, this proposal is for an expansion to 160,000 or 190,000 acre-feet. The difference in reservoir size depends on the location of the dam. If the dam is located downstream of the existing dam, the reservoir would be 190,000 acre- feet; if the existing dam is modified, the reservoir would be 160,000 acre-feet. It is assumed that the reservoir would be expanded to an elevation of 3,490 feet regardless of the location of the dam.

Benefits (Preliminary Estimate) RiverWare modeling was previously conducted for an expansion to 458,000 acre-feet but has not been conducted for the expansion to 160,000 or 190,000 acre-feet. However, a spreadsheet model using historic hydrologic data was used to evaluate an expansion to 200,000 acre-feet.

Examples of yields for a 3-year drought (1992 to 1994 conditions) are: Increase in TWSA in Year 1: 40,000 acre-feet Increase in TWSA in Year 2: 0 acre-feet Increase in TWSA in Year 3: 66,000 acre-feet

The estimated flow benefits for the third year of a drought (1994) are shown below: April – September flows at Parker: increase April – September flows at Yakima mouth: increase

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-18 July – October flow at Umtanum: small increase

These examples are intended solely to illustrate the expected scale of benefits and are based on specific operational assumptions. Benefits could be adjusted across years or between purposes, depending on operational rules adopted for the reservoir.

Cost (Preliminary Estimate) A preliminary cost estimate is $600 million to 1 billion, with mitigation estimated at an additional $20 million. Substantial work is needed to improve this estimate.

Issues/Uncertainties This specific project has not been studied in detail at this time. Some of the issues requiring analysis will include:  Feasibility of locating the dam for the expanded reservoir at the location of the existing dam.  Modeling of TWSA and flow benefits using specific reservoir size and operational assumptions.  Environmental impacts and potential mitigation of expanding the reservoir. Expanding the reservoir would inundate habitat surrounding the existing reservoir, including northern spotted owl habitat (670 or 982 acres, depending on the location of the dam), late successional forest habitat (693 or 719 acres, depending on the location of the dam), and bull trout spawning habitat (approximately 3,400 linear feet of Deep Creek). The expanded reservoir would also inundate existing recreation facilities including an access road, campgrounds, and private cabins.

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-19 Reservoir Inactive Storage

Summary Extract water from inactive storage in existing reservoirs (most likely Kachess) during drought years.

Phases Phase 1: Facilities to extract 100 thousand acre feet (kaf). Phase 2: Facilities to extract 100 kaf more (200 kaf total).

Purpose Improve water supply to proratable users and increase flows in the mainstem Yakima River during drought years.

Description Kachess Reservoir in the Upper Yakima River Basin was constructed at the site of a natural lake. As water is released from the existing reservoir, the storage pool can be drawn down almost to the elevation of the original lake surface. However, water below the “minimum-pool” elevation currently cannot be extracted.

This project involves modifying the existing reservoir so that water can be taken at depths below the current minimum pool elevation. From the standpoint of system operations, this is equivalent to enlarging the reservoir. However it has the advantage of not requiring additional land to be inundated, allows the current reservoir to remain operational during much of the construction process, and is less costly than enlarging the existing reservoir. However, additional energy costs may be incurred in drought years.

Tapping inactive storage could be done by pumping water from greater depths within the reservoir through a new pipeline or by constructing a tunnel beneath the bed of the reservoir to allow drainage by gravity flow. The pumping option would likely involve lower upfront construction costs, but would have higher operational costs due to the energy required to lift large volumes of water.

If inactive storage is tapped from Kachess Reservoir, construction of the Keechelus-to-Kachess Pipeline (described separately) would increase project benefits.

Benefits (Preliminary Estimate) In Phase 1, this project would yield an additional 100,000 acre-feet of water available to either support proratable water users, improve streamflow during low-flow periods, or both. In Phase 2, this project would double this amount, for a total of 200,000 acre-feet. (If the tunnel option is used, it may be advantageous to construct the full capacity in one phase).

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-20 Operational rules could be established so that this increased quantity could be managed either for maximum benefits in the first year of a drought, or to extended benefits over longer periods of multiyear droughts.

For the 100,000 acre-foot quantity (Phase 1), examples of yields for TWSA and instream flow for the first year of a drought or in a 1-year drought (2005 conditions) are: Increase in TWSA: 66,600 af Increase in water available for Flow: 33,400 af

Examples of yields managed for a 3-year drought (1992-1994 conditions) are: Increase in TWSA in Year 1: 33,300 af Increase in TWSA in Year 2: 0 af Increase in TWSA in Year 3: 33,300 af Increase in water for Flow in Year 1: 16,700 af Increase in water for Flow in Year 2: 0 (no releases for flow) Increase in water for Flow in Year 3: 16,700 af

Benefits would essentially be doubled at the 200,000 acre-foot quantity (Phase 2).

These examples are intended solely to illustrate the expected scale of benefits, and are based on specific operational assumptions. Benefits could be adjusted across years or between purposes, depending on operational rules adopted for this supply.

Cost (Preliminary Estimate) A preliminary cost estimate is $25 to 50 million. This assumes construction of a pump station, rather than a tunnel. Substantial work is needed to improve this estimate.

Issues/Uncertainties This project has not been studied in detail at this time. Some of the issues requiring analysis will include:  Modeling of basin hydrology with the additional water use in drought years.  Environmental impacts of increasing reservoir drawdown.  Economic considerations of gravity and pumping options.  Impacts or benefits of routing water through a pipeline or tunnel to the Kachess River downstream from the existing dam.

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-21 Columbia River Pump/Storage

Summary Pump water from the Columbia River in conjunction with additional storage, contingent on consistency with obligations to protect and restore Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations, and other requirements and obligations, and on demonstrated need from climate change or other factors. Phase Phase 2

Purpose Increase water supplies for proratable users and improve streamflow in the middle and/or lower Yakima basin.

Description The Yakima River is a tributary of the Columbia River. Two major reservoirs are located behind Priest Rapids Dam on the Columbia River east of the Yakima Project – Wanapum and Priest Rapids Reservoirs, approximately 1-12 miles east of the Yakima basin drainage divide. This project would involve installation of a pump station and pipeline to pump Columbia River water to the Yakima River Basin for water supply and instream flow purposes. All of the water pumped would be delivered to water users. On a preliminary basis, the project is assumed to involve a total quantity of 50 kaf to 350 kaf.

Water would be stored in a new reservoir(s) located in one of the dry canyons east of the Yakima River such as Lmuma Canyon (same site as Wymer Reservoir project); or Selah Creek Canyon.

Benefits (Preliminary Estimate) Water supply: 50 to 350 kaf

Cost (Preliminary Estimate) To be determined.

Issues/Uncertainties  There are many claimants to waters of the Columbia River in both Washington and Oregon. Initiating a project to divert water of the Columbia River for use in the Yakima basin is controversial.  The project would have to meet stringent limitations in order to protect fish and wildlife habitat in the Columbia River basin.  The project involves a substantial pumping plant to pump water to the Yakima River watershed from the Columbia River. Even with power-recovery elements built into the project, this would involve substantial energy usage and associated annual pumping costs.

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-22 Section C4 Groundwater Storage

Municipal Aquifer Storage and Recovery

Summary Inject treated Naches River water into wells around the City of Yakima to extend available municipal supply in drought or low flow conditions.. Explore using this method for other municipal water systems in the Yakima basin where feasible.

Phase Phase 1.

Purpose Extend municipal supplies to serve growing populations.

Description Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) involves diverting surface waters during high-flow periods and storing the water in underground aquifers for use during low-flow periods. The City of Yakima has studied this approach and is proposing to implement it to extend its available supplies. Water would be diverted from the Naches River and treated at the City’s existing water treatment plant. It would then be injected through wells and later pumped out for use by the City’s residents and businesses.

ASR may also be viable for other cities in the Yakima basin. Evaluate water supply options, including transfer of agricultural water to municipalities. These opportunities will be explored further.

Benefits (Preliminary Estimate) The City of Yakima project benefits are estimated to be approximately 5-10 kaf.

Cost (Preliminary Estimate) A preliminary cost estimate is $4 to 6 million.

Issues/Uncertainties  ASR is a relatively new approach to water management in Washington State and regulatory oversight is still evolving. State agencies with regulatory roles include the Departments of Ecology and Health.  Performance may vary considerably due to characteristics of local aquifers.

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-23 Groundwater Infiltration Prior to Storage Control

Summary Use stored water in the winter and early spring (prior to “storage control or when otherwise beneficial and desirable given instream and out-of-stream needs”) to recharge groundwater aquifers. Water would be conveyed to recharge locations using existing canals. This technique may offer opportunities to increase streamflow and augment water supply. This concept requires further development and pilot studies.

Phase Phases 1 and 2.

Purpose Enhance water storage in the basin by using surface water to recharge aquifers and taking advantage of the natural storage capacity of geologic formations to store water for later recovery or gradual discharge to enhance streamflows.

Description Aquifers would be recharged with surface water diverted from the Yakima River or tributaries during high-flow periods and prior to storage control or when otherwise beneficial and desirable given instream and out-of-stream needs. Water right permits would be required to divert, store, and use for recharge. New or existing infrastructure would be used to convey water to recharge sites. The infiltration sites would be located to meet desired timing objectives for passive recharge to enhance streamflows for downstream benefits (flow and supply). Wells and pump stations on drains may also be used to extract water to meet supply needs.

Benefits (Preliminary Estimate) Enhance spring and early summer flows and water supply. If successfully implemented could result in 150 kaf improvement (or more) in TWSA in a given year.

Cost (Preliminary Estimate) A preliminary cost estimate is $40 to 100 million. Substantial work is needed to define this approach and improve the cost estimate.

Issues/Uncertainties  Needs further evaluation to identify more detailed conceptual approaches including conveyance systems, recharge locations, willing landowners, recharge facilities, monitoring, costs, and other considerations.  Need pilot studies to determine recharge rates and timing back to surface waters. Water right permits will be required from Ecology. Washington groundwater recharge rules are early in development for this type of recharge, because it is a relatively new approach to water

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-24 management in Washington State. Therefore, regulatory uncertainty exists as State requirements are emerging. This concept is being pilot-tested in a few locations in Washington (e.g., Walla Walla basin). Ecology is the lead permitting agency.

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-25 Section C5 Fish Habitat Enhancements

Mainstem Floodplain Restoration Program

Summary Implement program to protect and restore floodplain habitats on mainstem Naches and Yakima Rivers.

Phase Phases 1 and 2.

Purpose Protect and restore floodplain habitats on the mainstem Naches and Yakima: 1) Protection of functional floodplain habitats 2) Restoration of floodplain function in major floodplain reaches

Description The Workgroup has identified the following programmatic elements, funding levels, and timeframes for the floodplain restoration program:

Recommended Program Element Funding Level* Geographic Areas Timing Mainstem Floodplain Restoration Tier I – Existing projects $25M Union Gap, Ellensburg Phase I with estimated budgets Floodplain (Schaake), Lower (Years 1 – 7) Naches Tier II – Existing planning $50M ($2M/yr for 5 Upper Ellensburg/Kittitas, Years 1 – 15 efforts underway years; $4M/yr for 5 – Wapato, Naches/Nile, 15 years) Selah/Taylor Ditch, Easton Tier III $30M ($1M/yr for 30 Benton City/West Richland, Years 1 - 30 years) Yakima Delta, & all other areas Program Management $7.5M (or $0.25M/yr) Basinwide Years 1 – 30 (management and oversight, preliminary design) Total $112.5M *2009 dollars

Benefits (Preliminary Estimate) This program will make significant progress toward meeting delisting goals for ESA-listed steelhead and bull trout and should significantly increase Chinook production. It will significantly improve prospects for recovering fish populations to levels that can sustain harvest and are resilient to catastrophic events and the potential impacts of climate change by

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-26 accelerating ongoing efforts to protect existing high-value habitats, improve fish passage, enhance flows, improve habitat complexity, and reconnect side channels and off-channel habitat to stream channels.

It will help create improved spawning/incubation, rearing, and migration conditions for all salmonid species in the Yakima basin, implement key strategies described in the Yakima Subbasin Plan, and complete most of the actions described in the Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan, in combination with tributary habitat enhancement program.

Cost (Preliminary Estimate) See table above. With contingency, costs could range from $115 to $150 million.

Issues/Uncertainties  Need to conduct key tributary and mainstem floodplain restoration reach-level conceptual planning and budget estimate validation/updates as part of 2010 Yakima River Basin Study, in partnership with local agencies. Also, consider whether programmatic National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review documentation could be developed as part of this effort.  Consider how floodplain restoration program could be integrated with county flood hazard reduction planning efforts.

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-27 Tributaries Habitat Enhancement Program

Summary Implement habitat enhancement program to protect and enhance tributary habitats. Fund headwaters restoration and emergent opportunities.

Phase Phases 1 and 2.

Purpose Protect and enhance tributary habitats: 1) Improve riparian conditions and instream complexity 2) Maintain and restore connections with floodplains and headwaters 3) Ensure appropriate tributary flow regimes for fish needs 4) Improve upstream and downstream fish passage

Description/Cost Summary The Workgroup has identified the following programmatic elements, funding levels, and timeframes for the habitat enhancement program:

Recommended Program Element Funding Level* Geographic Areas Timing Tributaries Program Passage/Screening Projects $13.85M Upper and Middle Yakima Years 1 – 15 Habitat Restoration (Below $16.3M Upper and Middle Yakima Years 1 – 15 Reservoirs) Wilson/Naneum $12.25M Wilson/Naneum Years 1 – 10 Headwaters Restoration $8.25M ($0.5M/yr) Headwaters above Years 1 – 30 reservoirs and on USFS lands YN Reservation $25M Satus and Toppenish Years 1 –10 Screening/Passage/Restoration Creeks Emergent Needs Fund: $15M ($5M upfront Basinwide – tributaries Years 1 – 20 Acquisition/Conservation plus $0.5M/ yr) Easement Opportunities Total $91 M *2009 dollars

Benefits (Preliminary Estimate) This program will make significant progress toward meeting delisting goals for ESA-listed steelhead and bull trout. It should significantly increase Chinook production. It will significantly improve prospects for recovering fish populations to levels that can sustain harvest and are resilient to catastrophic events and the potential impacts of climate change by

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-28 accelerating ongoing efforts to protect existing high-value habitats, improve fish passage, enhance flows, improve habitat complexity, and reconnect side channels and off-channel habitat to stream channels.

It will help create improved spawning/incubation, rearing, and migration conditions for all salmonid species in the Yakima basin, implement key strategies described in the Yakima Subbasin Plan, and complete most of the actions described in the Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan, in combination with floodplain restoration program.

Cost (Preliminary Estimate) Provided above. With contingency, costs could range from $95 to 130 million.

Issues/Uncertainties  Need to conduct key tributary conceptual planning and budget estimate validation/updates as part of 2010 Yakima River Basin Study in partnership with local agencies.  Need to coordinate with U.S. Forest Service on headwater tributary enhancements.

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-29 Section C6 Enhanced Water Conservation

Agricultural Water Conservation

Summary Continue and expand a water conservation program to reduce water demands for irrigators and improve streamflows in targeted reaches.

Phase Phase 1 would include YRBWEP conservation projects plus some Enhanced Water Conservation Element projects (see discussion below). Phase 2 would include additional Enhanced Water Conservation projects.

Purpose Reduce the amount of water required to be diverted or used for irrigation by increasing efficiency in the transport, delivery, and application of irrigation water.

Description Agricultural water conservation includes an aggressive program of irrigation district infrastructure improvements, and on-farm conservation and irrigation efficiency improvements. This program includes measures that are currently being evaluated for Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project (YRBWEP) funding and additional projects that go beyond the current funding ceiling for YRBWEP. The additional projects include but are not limited to those described as the “Enhanced Water Conservation Element” in Ecology’s June 2009 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

Specific agricultural water conservation measures include lining or piping existing canals, automating canals, constructing reregulating reservoirs on irrigation canals, improving water measurement and accounting systems, installing onfarm water conservation improvements and other measures.

Water conservation programs implemented under the current YRBWEP allocate two-thirds of the conserved water resulting from a conservation measure to instream flows with one-third of the conserved water retained by the implementing entity for irrigation use. It is assumed that the two-thirds portion remains in the river from the implementing entity’s point of diversion to the last point of operational discharge from its water delivery system. The distribution of the water conserved by projects under the Enhanced Water Conservation Element has yet to be determined. In Ecology’s FEIS it was assumed that all savings from agricultural conservation projects implemented under the Enhanced Water Conservation Element would become part of the Total Water Supply Available (TWSA) to be managed by Reclamation for all water users.

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-30 Benefits (Preliminary Estimate) Agricultural water conservation would increase TWSA during drought years and increase instream flow in various reaches of the Yakima and Naches Rivers. For a 1-year drought (2005 conditions), examples of estimated benefits are: Increase in TWSA: 98,000 acre feet (af) Increase in water flow at Parker: 65,000 af

For a 3-year drought (1992-1994 conditions), examples of estimated benefits are: Increase in TWSA in Year 1: 95,000 af Increase in TWSA in Year 2: 42,000 af Increase in TWSA in Year 3: 8,000 af Increase in water flow at Parker in Year 3: 68,000 af

Actual benefits will be dependent on projects implemented.

Cost (Preliminary Estimate) The estimated cost for water conservation measures being evaluated under YRBWEP is $143 million. The estimated cost of the Enhanced Water Conservation Element is $425 million. This totals approximately $570 million. Phase 1 would include full implementation of YRBWEP plus some of the Enhanced projects for a total Phase 1 cost of $300 million. Phase 2 would include further enhanced projects funded at an additional $270 million. Actual costs will depend on the projects implemented.

Issues/Uncertainties Individual projects within the agricultural water conservation program are at various levels of the evaluation process. Many projects require additional analysis and evaluation to determine feasibility and benefits at a greater level. Some issues requiring analysis include:  Determination of entity interest in implementing projects.  Determination of distribution of water conserved by project implementation.

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-31 Municipal/Domestic Conservation

Summary Reduce water used by municipal water systems and rural households, through projects and programs that promote water-use efficiency.

Phase Phases 1 and 2.

Purpose Extend available municipal water supplies to serve ongoing population growth. Provide streamflow benefits where applicable.

Description A variety of water conservation techniques can be applied to manage water demands in the municipal and industrial sector, as well as by individual homeowners using domestic wells. This program will expand and accelerate the adoption of water conservation practices and installation of water-efficient equipment for these users. In addition, this program will explore how efficiencies can be realized as farmland is converted for urban and residential uses.

This preliminary IWRMP action has not been developed at this time, and will require further attention as an element of the 2010 Plan of Study.

Benefits (Preliminary Estimate) As part of the 2009 Workgroup process, an “order-of-magnitude” estimate was developed of how much municipal and domestic water production could be reduced through application of a comprehensive suite of common water conservation measures, coupled with reduction in leakage of municipal water distribution systems. The total reduction in water produced was estimated as follows, for varying levels of participation by residents and businesses throughout the Yakima basin: Variable Participation (5-50%): 7,100 acre feet (af) 25% Participation: 7,500 af 50% Participation: 11,500 af 75% Participation: 15,400 af

These quantities represent total reductions in water pumped or diverted without adjusting for return flow effects from septic systems and municipal wastewater systems. Since much of the water produced currently is returned to surface or groundwaters of the Yakima basin, benefits to streamflow would be substantially lower than these water reduction estimates.

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-32 Cost (Preliminary Estimate) A preliminary estimate is $1 to 3 million. Substantial work is needed to improve this estimate.

Issues/Uncertainties  More detailed analysis would be needed to refine the preliminary work done to date.  Implementation of water conservation on a consistent basis across the Yakima basin would require involvement by many local jurisdictions.  Programs targeting municipal water system customers are likely to be more successful than programs targeting rural domestic well owners.  The issue of water-use efficiency for lands converted from agricultural to urban uses has not been addressed at this time.

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-33 Section C7 Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources/Transfers

Summary Continue existing programs and policies that support transfers of water within the Yakima basin and take additional steps to promote and reduce impediments to transfers.

Phase Phases 1 and 2.

Purpose Improve the flexibility of water supply and improve the economic value of goods and services produced using the basin’s water resources.

Description Ecology’s 2009 FEIS on the Integrated Water Resource Management Alternative explored several options regarding water transfers and water banking. The FEIS recommends a combination of short-term options that would improve on existing programs and policies together with long-term options that would require substantial changes in existing laws and administrative structures.

Short-term options include:  Seeking expanded jurisdiction for the Yakima Superior Court to expedite temporary transfers  Seeking new authority for the Court to process permanent transfers  Seeking new authority for the Court to process groundwater transfers  Amending the “Hillis Rule” to support expedited processing of water bank transactions  Exploring approval of temporary/seasonal transfers while a permanent transfer is being processed Long-term options would go further to open the water market to a larger group of participants and change the administration of water rights. The long-term options are focused on irrigation districts as a central intermediary to facilitate transfers.

These short- and long-term approaches will be further developed with the objective of reducing impediments to water transfers and banking while continuing to protect the rights of third parties not involved in these transactions, maintaining a robust agricultural economy in the basin, and ensuring that transfers do not disrupt Reclamation’s operational obligations.

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-34 Benefits (Preliminary Estimate) In contrast with other elements of the preliminary IWRMP, this element would redistribute water supplies rather than expanding water supplies. Redistribution would promote flexibility among uses and increase economic outputs. Quantities are estimated as follows:

Phase I: potential reallocation of enough water to make a significant contribution to water management flexibility in the basin . Phase II: increase potential reallocation of enough water to make a significant contribution to water management flexibility and increase the economic efficiency of drought response in the basin .

These estimates are provisional and depend on the nature of the changes accomplished as well as the level of participation by buyers and sellers in future years.

Cost (Preliminary Estimate) Costs of institutional improvements to facilitate market-based transfers have not been estimated at this time. Costs would likely consist of long-term annual operating costs for the Yakima Superior Court and/or other administrative frameworks developed to support transactions. These costs are expected to be relatively low compared with other actions in the preliminary IWRMP.

Issues/Uncertainties  This element requires a number of changes in procedures and/or legal authorities across institutional boundaries. Involved parties may include the State Legislature, Yakima Superior Court, Department of Ecology, Bureau of Reclamation, and/or participating irrigation districts. The number of parties involved creates uncertainties in implementing this action.  Once institutional frameworks have been modified to support transfers and banking, irrigation districts and/or individuals with entitlements to surface and/or groundwater will need to participate in order to actually achieve the objectives. The level of participation cannot be predicted with high certainty.

Attachment C Prepared by HDR, Anchor QEA, and ESA Adolfson Page C-35 12 12 Miles Miles 90 § ¨ ¦ 0 Spokane Spokane Pasco Kennewick Kennewick 84 § ¨ ¦ Richland OREGON OREGON WASHINGTON WASHINGTON Yakima Yakima Seattle 5 § ¨ ¦ AREA Dams Rivers, Creeks Bodies Water Yakima River Basin Boundary Nation* Yakama Project IrrigationYakima Districts Interstate Highway US Highway City Boundaries County Boundary Vancouver PROJECT t u § ¨ ¦ LEGEND *Updated information*Updated displaying D' 'Tract was not available for production thisof report. 12 t u Almira Almira Mesa Mesa Mesa 395 Krupp Krupp t u

Warden Warden

730

R t u I R R V E

Creek

Creek Creek

Wilson

Hartline Wilson Hartline C O A A I L B U M Othello Othello 82 Kennewick Kennewick Pasco § ¨ ¦ Pasco FRANKLIN COUNTYFRANKLIN ADAMS COUNTY 182 § ¨ ¦ Coulee City Moses Lake Moses

Coulee City Moses Lake Lake Moses Richland Richland

a r m i e

v

Dam

k i

a

R Y City Benton Soap Lake Benton City Benton Soap Lake Ephrata Wanawish Diversion Ephrata 2 GRANT COUNTY t u Exhibit 1 Dam Priest Priest Dam Rapids Royal CityRoyal Royal City 90 Prosser Diversion § ¨ ¦ Dam

Wanapum

R R River BasinYakima

E

V

I COUNTY BENTON

Prosser

Prosser Prosser R

M

U L B

O I

A A Quincy Quincy C George George Mattawa Mattawa Grandview Grandview Mabton Mabton DOUGLAS COUNTY Dam Sunnyside Sunnyside Sunnyside (Parker) COUNTY

A YAKIMA KITTITAS KITTITAS I COUNTY Diversion COLUMB Sunnyside Waterville Waterville Waterville RIVER Rock Island Rock Rock Island Island Rock

Granger Granger

Entiat Entiat

k k Zillah

e Zillah e

r

C

n

a

m

e

l Dam

o

C

k k e

e

k k Wapato

r 82

e

C

m

Diversion

Wenatchee u

k k e § ¨ ¦

r r

e e Toppenish

Wenatchee

e e Toppenish r

n

v

r

i

a

C

R

C 97

N a n n

o Moxee

s Moxee

l

m

y i

i t u

k

Kittitas r

W Kittitas Wapato a

r Wapato

Y e

h

er C

ec k e

Cashmere e w

Cashmere Cashmere R k e e

d e

i o k r

k C

e e l

e Selah e

r Selah l

r s s

C Harrah

Yakima

Harrah Harrah u Yakima

W e t a e e

r k k o

m m S

C C r k k

Ellensburg H Ellensburg u

e C

h a

u

w k k

n S e

s r

a

97

t a

C

t

t u h

s A

nawa y a

k k n Naches Leavenworth a Naches Naches Leavenworth Leavenworth

k e

e e

v r a h h

i

c T

e k

R s

M Tieton

a i r

Tieton e

m Dam

Roza Roza n

J e

C k u r

e e e

Dam C

e Diversion p n

r p Easton KLICKITAT COUNTY COUNTY KLICKITAT

a

Dam o

C

Diversion T s T Tieton

e Goldendale ch Goldendale a er Diversion

CHELAN COUNTY COUNTY CHELAN N iv R m Cle u Dam Elum

l ElumCle n r E ElumCle e a o e l r Roslyn e Roslyn t C v v i m i i r e R i

k e R

r T

a v

i k e

e

Y C

e r e v r r e v i

R l

i

R t

e e

l t R

t t

L i i

s s s

e h L s c

a e

K h

Cle Elum Lake Lake Elum Cle c

r r

g g a

e

k Lake Rimrock

e

n

N v

i e i

r Dam

p

R C Lake

d Tieton

l

o m n n

r r

G

Kachess Kachess u

a

e

B

c

v

i n

i a

r di R e n

I ek

m Cre A Skykomish Skykomish 90 Lake Bumping

§ ¨ ¦ Dam Keechelus Lake Lake Keechelus Kachess Dam Dam Clear Creek Dam Lake 12 KING COUNTY KING

Keechelus t u

PIERCE COUNTY COUNTY PIERCE LEWIS COUNTY COUNTY LEWIS Bumping Bumping

PM 3:06 12/18/2009 ckiblinger 01_Yakima_River_Basin\Maps\2009_12\Vicinity_Map_Summary_Front_of_Report_8x11.mxd ‐ Q:\Jobs\070402