FY07-09 proposal 200300100

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleManastash Crk Passage & Screening
Proposal ID200300100
OrganizationKittitas County Conservation District
Short descriptionThe Manastash Creek Project will provide fish passage, diversion screening and seek instream flow to support fish recovery in the Yakima Basin. This proposal is for Phase 1: screening/passage. Phase 2: instream flow will be a second proposal.
Information transferInformaton about this project will be shared on a the Kittitas County Conservation District website, through presentations to elected officials, technical groups and the public, and through on-site tours.
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Contacts
ContactOrganizationEmail
Form submitter
Anna Lael Kittitas County Conservation District a-lael@wa.nacdnet.org
All assigned contacts
Ed Donahue, PE HDR / FishPro edonahue@hdrinc.com
Anna Lael Kittitas County Conservation District a-lael@wa.nacdnet.org
Anna Lael Kittitas County Conservation District a-lael@wa.nacdnet.org
Sara Leist Kittitas County Conservation District sara-bull@wa.nacdnet.org
Jay Marcotte jgmarcotte@bpa.gov

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Yakima

LatitudeLongitudeWaterbodyDescription
47 12'44 120 67'55 Manastash Creek Lower 5 miles of Manastash Creek; RB tributary to the Yakima River at RM 154.5

Section 3. Focal species

primary: Steelhead Middle Columbia River ESU
secondary: Chinook Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESU
secondary: Coho Unspecified Population
secondary: Bull Trout
secondary: Rainbow Trout

Section 4. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishments
2005 Finalized strategy for fish screening/passage, permits near-final, preliminary design for consolidated diversion, hydrogeology review, conceptual plan for phase II: instream flow. Exploring landowner agreements. Sought funding for ancillary elements.
2004 Engaged project engineer (FishPro) and survey company (HLA) and began design work. Began permitting processes. Conducted tours and shared information with local and regional interests. Examined stockwater transfers to groundwater; canal seepage losses.
2003 Organization:establishment of KCCD as project manager, convening a steering committee and subcommittees, developing an agreement on working cooperatively together, developed project maps, and secured funding from BPA and WA Legislature.

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Funding sourceRelated IDRelated titleRelationship
BPA 200202501 Yakima Tributary Access & Habi YTAHP originally proposed to assist Manastash water users with screening and passage. YTAHP remains available for some aspects of this project.
BPA 199604000 Coho Restoration Mid-Columbia Providing fish passage up Manastash Creek will open 30 miles of rearing and potentially spawning habitat for coho.
BPA 198811512 Easton Spring Chinook Acclimat Providing fish passage up Manastash Creek will open 30 miles of rearing and potentially spawning habitat for chinook.
Other: Federal NRCS NRCS Environmental Quality Incentives Program EQIP is available to irrigators to install water conveyance and on-farm irrigation enhnacements and is assistig in a water delivery element that is complementary to the overall project.
Other: State WWT WA Water Trust The WWT and Manastash Project steering comittee have explored ways to convert some creek stockwater rights to groundwater rights to increase instream flows. In addition, there may be additional discussions about water right leases or purchases to increase instream flow seasonally or permanently.
Other: State Ecology Water Metering Devices The WA Department of Ecology is funding the installation of 5 water metering devices for the Manastash Project.
Other: State Ecology Conveyance Infrastructure The WA Department of Ecology is considering funding an irrigation water delivery pipeline that is complementary to this project and keeps irrigation deliverys out of the creek.
Other: Other: State WA Rivers Cnsrv Washington Rivers Conservancy The Washington Rivers Conservancy and Manastash Project steering committee are exploring ways to increase instream flows. through water right leases or purchases to increase instream flow seasonally or permanently.
Other: State Ecology Manastash Restoration Project The KCCD has a contract with Ecology for a total $2.24 million for the Manastash Restoration Project. The majority of the cost share or match noted for this project in the Budget is provided by this contract with Ecology. Funds were appropriated by the WA Legislature.

Section 6. Biological objectives

Biological objectivesFull descriptionAssociated subbasin planStrategy
Conservation Piping Installation of 1,000 feet of surface water conveyance pipeline to deliver creek water while conserving flow. Yakima Water Conservation to support instream flow.
Diversion Screening Install NOAA/WDFW compliant fish screens on creek diversions to prevent entrainment or impingment of fish at diversions. Yakima Install compliant fish screens to prevent entrainment or impingment
Fish Passage Provide up- and downstream passage for adult and juvenile resident and anadromous fish Yakima Remove man-made barriers and/or provide fish passage at barriers. (E=exec summary; S=supplement)
Riparian Habitat Enhance riparian habitat with native trees and shrubs to stabilize banks, reduce erosion, increase shade, reduce water temperatures and provide for instream large woody debris recruitment. Yakima Riparian habitat enhancement with vegetation to stabilize banks, provide shade and LWD.

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Work element nameWork element titleDescriptionStart dateEnd dateEst budget
Manage and Administer Projects Manage and Administer Projects (budget included in personnel) The KCCD will administer and manage the contract, provide administrative support to the Manastash Project steering committee, manage subcontractors, and work with BPA on billing and reporting. 1/1/2007 9/30/2009 $196,000
Biological objectives
Conservation Piping
Diversion Screening
Fish Passage
Riparian Habitat
Metrics
Other Landowner Agreements/Easements Negotiate landowner agreements to address construction and permanent agreeements and other agreements, as needed 1/1/2007 9/30/2009 $70,000
Biological objectives
Conservation Piping
Diversion Screening
Fish Passage
Riparian Habitat
Metrics
Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation Manastash Creek Restoration Permitting Support (budget included in personnel) In-house or consultant will provide permitting support, as needed, for any project elements not already permitted, and will assist with any ongoing environmental compliance or reporting. 1/1/2007 9/30/2009 $35,000
Biological objectives
Conservation Piping
Diversion Screening
Fish Passage
Riparian Habitat
Metrics
Produce Design and/or Specifications Prepare engineering designs for screens, passage, piping This element will provide for final design for consolidated screen, fish passage, pipeline(s) and on-farm systems 1/1/2007 9/30/2009 $205,000
Biological objectives
Conservation Piping
Diversion Screening
Fish Passage
Metrics
Install Fish Screen Diversion Screening Construct/install NOAA/WDFW compliant fish screens on individual diversion structures, consolidating diversins where possible, and providing for fish passage at each structure. 1/1/2007 9/30/2009 $285,000
Biological objectives
Diversion Screening
Metrics
* Does the screen meet NOAA/FSOC specs?: Yes
* Flow rate at the screen diversion allowed by the water right: 86 cfs
* Is the screen New or a Replacement?: New
* Quantity of water protected by screening, as determined by what is stated in the water right or calculated based on flow rate: 27,637.1 ac-ft
Remove/Modify Dam Modify dam and install fishway Modification of dam sills, including low flow notch, installation of concrete and/or rock weir structures to create up and downstream passage for adults and juveniles. 1/1/2007 9/30/2009 $20,000
Biological objectives
Fish Passage
Metrics
* # of miles of habitat accessed: 30 miles
Install Fish Passage Structure Install Fishway Install fish way at Consolidated screen 1/1/2007 3/30/2009 $80,000
Biological objectives
Fish Passage
Metrics
Install Pipeline Install conservation pipeline Install ~1,000 feet of conveyance piping from consolidated diversion to conserve delivery water, control erosion and reduce sedimentation. Install secondary measuring devices for separate deliveries. 1/1/2007 9/30/2009 $132,035
Biological objectives
Conservation Piping
Metrics
Install Fish Passage Structure Instream passage at decommissioned diversions Install rock structures at three decommissioned diversions. 1/1/2008 9/30/2009 $115,000
Biological objectives
Fish Passage
Metrics
* Was barrier Full or Partial?: partial
* # of miles of habitat accessed: 30 miles
* Does the structure remove or replace a fish passage barrier?: Yes
Plant Vegetation Riparian Revegetation in disturbed areas Plant native trees and shrubs to support short and long-term riparian vegetation benefits, including shade, filtration, erosion control and wood recruitment. 1/1/2007 9/30/2009 $20,000
Biological objectives
Riparian Habitat
Metrics
* # of acres of planted: 1.6 ac
* # of riparian miles treated: 0.25 mi
Maintain Vegetation Maintain vegetation with watering, weeding Maintain planted vegetation by watering and weeding plantings done under this project and its predecessor (2006 plantings) 1/1/2007 9/30/2009 $2,000
Biological objectives
Riparian Habitat
Metrics
Operate and Maintain Habitat/Passage O/M on diversion screens and fish passage facilities Operations and maintenance of diversion screens and fish passage facilities as described in agreement between irrigators and BPA (may utilize third party to work). 1/1/2007 9/30/2009 $60,125
Biological objectives
Diversion Screening
Fish Passage
Metrics

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget
ItemNoteFY07FY08FY09
Personnel KCCD project manager, partial FTE $40,000 $40,000 $40,000
Fringe Benefits KCCD project manager, partial FTE $12,000 $12,000 $12,000
Supplies KCCD supplies $8,000 $4,000 $2,000
Travel KCCD travel $600 $500 $400
Overhead KCCD overhead $28,030 $33,875 $11,055
Other Engineering, design $95,000 $85,000 $25,000
Other Contracted construction $253,000 $354,000 $15,575
Other Habitat restoration crew $8,000 $8,000 $2,000
Other O/M on facilities $10,000 $40,000 $10,125
Other Professional services $30,000 $30,000 $10,000
Totals $484,630 $607,375 $128,155
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
Total itemized budget: $1,220,160
Total work element budget: $1,220,160
Cost sharing
Funding source/orgItem or service providedFY 07 est value ($)FY 08 est value ($)FY 09 est value ($)Cash or in-kind?Status
Ecology Water Metering Funds $84,000 $0 $0 Cash Confirmed
Legislature (Ecology) Screening/Passage Funds $1,400,000 $0 $0 Cash Confirmed
Totals $1,484,000 $0 $0

Section 9. Project future

FY 2010 estimated budget: $12,000
FY 2011 estimated budget: $12,000
Comments: Operation and Maintenance

Future O&M costs:

Termination date:
Comments:

Final deliverables:

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

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

Reviews and recommendations

FY07 budget FY08 budget FY09 budget Total budget Type Category Recommendation
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs]
$500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $1,500,000 Capital ProvinceCapital Fund
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs]
$0 $0 $0 $0 ProvinceCapital

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: The proposal is well written and proposes to extend the scope of ongoing work. A response is needed regarding (a) benefits to fish, (b) fish monitoring and evaluation, and (c) the relationship to proposal 200702000 before the ISRP can make a final recommendation. (a) Please provide a brief summary of current use of the project area by steelhead and resident trout species. What specific benefits for them are anticipated as a result of this project? (b) There is inadequate mention of monitoring and evaluation. It is not likely that project personnel would provide the M&E but they should describe coverage from other projects or agencies. The proponents should be thinking about baseline biological studies to measure project effectiveness. (c) This proposal is directly related to the currently considered proposal 200702000 to increase flow, which would complement the screening work. To what extent do achieving substantial benefits to fish depend upon both issues (screening and flow enhancement) being addressed?


ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Not fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: This proposal and its companion 20070200 are viewed by the ISRP as not fundable (Qualified) because these two projects have a history of the sponsor failing to give evidence of fish benefits. This “Not fundable” recommendation is qualified because, in general, adding flow and removing barriers and screening diversion have the potential to be beneficial to fish populations. However, the response by the sponsors did not provide an adequate reply to the ISRP’s concerns: (a) Please provide a brief summary of current use of the project area by steelhead and resident trout species. What specific benefits for them are anticipated as a result of this project? (b) There is inadequate mention of monitoring and evaluation. It is not likely that project personnel would provide the M&E, but they should describe coverage from other projects or agencies. The proponents should be thinking about baseline biological studies to measure project effectiveness. (c) This proposal is directly related to the currently considered proposal 200702000 to increase flow, which would complement the screening work. To what extent do achieving substantial benefits to fish depend upon both issues (screening and flow enhancement) being addressed? The sponsors note that coordination with Yakima Species Interaction Study, for long-term rainbow trout monitoring, will be essential to measure project effectiveness. However, not enough information is presented to determine the nature of any coordination. The sponsors assert that "correction of the passage barriers would allow access for both juvenile and adult upstream migration of summer steelhead, rainbow trout and other resident species to an additional 10 miles of habitat above the uppermost diversion during most of the year," but there are no plans to monitor for this occurrence. The engineering aspects of the project are well described but the link to biological response is lacking. It is not possible for reviewers to assess the extent to which the project will benefit anadromous fish. The ISRP was expecting a summary of how the recovered habitat would be used (e.g., what life history stages would use?). Without this kind of information the proposal retains the characteristics of a strictly engineering/hydrology project, and the ISRP has to take it on faith that there will be a benefit to fish. A revised narrative was provided that appeared to contain more detail on construction scope and scheduling. The issue of the extent to which this project will benefit fish without implementation of the instream flow enhancement (in the new, separate proposal 200702000) was not addressed.