FY07-09 proposal 200728300

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleUPA Wenatchee Subbasin Access Proposal
Proposal ID200728300
OrganizationChelan County Natural Resources Department
Short descriptionForty three (43) potential fish passage barrier structures are being proposed for funding to benefit Upper Columbia spring Chinook, steelhead and bull trout. Emphasis is on replacing the Mill Creek Culvert near the mouth of Peshastin Creek.
Information transferPISCES. Chelan County website. Contact Chelan County Natural Resource Department for reports.
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Contacts
ContactOrganizationEmail
Form submitter
Alan Schmidt Chelan Country Natural Resources Program alan.schmidt@co.chelan.wa.us
All assigned contacts
Joy Juelson Chelan County Natural Resource Program joy.juelson@co.chelan.wa.us
Alan Schmidt Chelan Country Natural Resources Program alan.schmidt@co.chelan.wa.us

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Columbia Cascade / Wenatchee

LatitudeLongitudeWaterbodyDescription
Derby Canyon Derby Canyon (3 Culverts)
East Fork Mission Creek East Fork Mission Creek (6 culverts)
Mission Creek Brender Creek, Mission Creek watershed (20 culverts)
Ruby Creek Ruby Creek (3 culverts)
Squilchuck Creek Squilchuck watershed (4 culverts)
Mill Creek Mill Creek (1 culvert)

Section 3. Focal species

primary: Chinook Upper Columbia River Spring ESU
primary: Steelhead Upper Columbia River ESU
secondary: All Resident Fish
secondary: Westslope Cutthroat
secondary: Bull Trout

Section 4. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Funding sourceRelated IDRelated titleRelationship
Other: SFRB CHELFISH Chelan County Fish Barrier Inventory Assess physical barriers that interrupt adult and juvenile salmonid migration. Identify problem culverts within the Wenatchee and Entiat watersheds, evaluate effectiveness of barrier removal in terms or restored access to fish habitat and create a ranking of recommended project areas.
Other: Chelan County Public Works BEAVER Beaver Creek Culvert Replacement Replace culvert with a 20 foot modular bridge unit to oprn up habitat for spring chinook and steelhead (possibly bull trout) on Beaver Creek. This project is located on Chiwawa Loop Rd, mailpost 0.0, Section 12, T26N R17. This project will take place at RM 0.3 on Beaver Creek.
PCSRF - WSRFB 00-1750 Chumstick Creek Barrier Remova Eight barrier removal projects on Chumstick Creek: CS10; CS12; CS13; CS16; CS17; CS18; CS90; CS91
Other: Bureau of Reclamation MCDEVITT McDevitt Diversion Project This project proposes to address an approximately 2 foot barrier and unscreened diversion associated with irrigation withdrawal on the lower Chumstick Creek.
Other: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service LNHICICLE LNH Icicle Creek Restoration Project This project provides fish passage and habitat improvements while protecting downstream neighbors from flooding.
Other: U.S. Forest Service LCCCR Little Camas Creek Culvert Replacement Culvert replacement in Little Camas Creek, Mission Creek sub-watershed
Other: U.S. Forest Service SANDCUL Sand Creek Culvert Replacement (Upper and Lower) Upper Sand Creek Culvert Replacement and Lower Sand Creek Culvert Replacement, Mission Creek sub-watershed
Other: Longview Fibre LFCULV (LF1-7) Longview Fibre Culvert Removal Removed culverts from locations in the Peshastin and Nason sub-watersheds
Other: Longview Fibre LFCULV (LF8) Longview Fibre Culvert Conversion Made blocking culvert into bridge at T23 R17 S23. Peshastin Creek sub-watershed.
Other: Chelan County Conservation District MILLSTRUC CCCD Instream Structure on Mill Creek This is the location of an in stream project that was implemented in 2004 on Mill Creek, a tributary to Peshastin Creek, by the CD. It involved installing a new fish screen on the irrigation diversion and fish passage structures (6) to allow for passage past the diversion point. The old screen was not compliant with current WDFW standards and just below the diversion point the stream had down cut approximately 4' and was a fish passage barrier. Attachments 4 and 5 (completed project3 and 4) show this project after completion. Nason Creek sub-watershed.
PCSRF - WSRFB 04-1509 Peshastin Creek Fish Barrier R Build a fish passage structure at Peshastin Irrigation District diversion structure on lower Peshastin Creek. Structure will allow access to spawning and rearing habitat for steelhead, bull trout and spring Chinook.
Other: SRFB, Chelan-Douglas Land Trust WHIFLRES White River Floodplain Restoration Reestablish off channel habitat access for salmon and steelhead in an old oxbow at the end of the Sears Creek Road along the White River. Obliteration of the road and removal of two culverts will reestablish fish access into .5 miles of off channel habitat and allow the floodplain to function naturally in this area during high flows.

Section 6. Biological objectives

Biological objectivesFull descriptionAssociated subbasin planStrategy
Replace existing fish passage barriers Replace existing fish passage barriers with fish-friendly structures. Supports Subbasin Plan Goal: " Man-made barriers present in watershed allow upstream and downstream fish passage at all flows. There are no barriers to fish passage within the subbasin." Wenatchee Restore adult and juvenile fish passage

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Work element nameWork element titleDescriptionStart dateEnd dateEst budget
Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation Permitting Permitting 10/1/2006 9/30/2008 $133,773
Biological objectives
Replace existing fish passage barriers
Metrics
Install Fish Passage Structure Culvert under dirt road Culvert under dirt road 10/1/2006 9/30/2008 $567,086
Biological objectives
Replace existing fish passage barriers
Metrics
Install Fish Passage Structure Culvert under paved road Culvert under paved road 10/1/2006 9/30/2008 $1,744,880
Biological objectives
Replace existing fish passage barriers
Metrics
Install Fish Passage Structure Install Planting Plan Install Planting Plan 10/1/2006 9/30/2008 $43,000
Biological objectives
Replace existing fish passage barriers
Metrics
Install Fish Passage Structure Mill Creek culvert (paved) Mill Creek culvert (paved) 10/1/2006 9/30/2008 $87,244
Biological objectives
Replace existing fish passage barriers
Metrics
Install Fish Passage Structure Road resurface Road resurface 10/1/2006 9/30/2008 $58,652
Biological objectives
Replace existing fish passage barriers
Metrics
Install Fish Passage Structure USFS Culvert under dirt road USFS Culvert under dirt road 10/1/2006 9/30/2008 $392,598
Biological objectives
Replace existing fish passage barriers
Metrics
Other Adjustment: work element budget and itemized budget are off by $56,747 We'll fix the problem. This is a programmatic proposal and costs were estimated. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $56,747
Biological objectives
Metrics
Other PISCES status report PISCES status report 10/1/2006 9/30/2008 $18,619
Biological objectives
Replace existing fish passage barriers
Metrics
Other Produce Annual Report Produce Annual Report 10/1/2006 9/30/2008 $10,019
Biological objectives
Replace existing fish passage barriers
Metrics
Coordination Coordination Coordination 10/1/2006 9/30/2008 $38,055
Biological objectives
Replace existing fish passage barriers
Metrics
Coordination Coordination Coordination 10/1/2006 9/30/2008 $16,727
Biological objectives
Replace existing fish passage barriers
Metrics
Manage and Administer Projects Manage and Administer Contracts Manage and Administer Contracts 10/1/2006 9/30/2008 $296,485
Biological objectives
Replace existing fish passage barriers
Metrics
Produce Design and/or Specifications Planning and Design Develop 95% designs 10/1/2006 9/30/2008 $95,546
Biological objectives
Replace existing fish passage barriers
Metrics
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Post Construction Level 1 Effectiveness Monitoring Post Construction Level 1 Effectiveness Monitoring 10/1/2006 9/30/2008 $39,388
Biological objectives
Replace existing fish passage barriers
Metrics
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Post construction Level 1 Effectiveness Monitoring Post construction Level 1 Effectiveness Monitoring 10/1/2006 9/30/2008 $28,681
Biological objectives
Replace existing fish passage barriers
Metrics
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Post construction Level 1 Effectiveness Monitoring Post construction Level 1 Effectiveness Monitoring 10/1/2006 9/30/2008 $28,681
Biological objectives
Replace existing fish passage barriers
Metrics
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Pre construction Level 1 Effectiveness Monitoring Pre construction Level 1 Effectiveness Monitoring 10/1/2006 9/30/2008 $15,738
Biological objectives
Replace existing fish passage barriers
Metrics
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Pre Construction Level 1 Effectiveness Monitoring Pre Construction Level 1 Effectiveness Monitoring 10/1/2006 9/30/2008 $39,388
Biological objectives
Replace existing fish passage barriers
Metrics
Develop RM&E Methods and Designs Complete Year 1 Level 1 Effectiveness Monitoring Complete Year 1 Level 1 Effectiveness Monitoring 10/1/2006 9/30/2008 $39,388
Biological objectives
Replace existing fish passage barriers
Metrics

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget
ItemNoteFY07FY08FY09
Personnel Salaries $130,744 $130,744 $0
Fringe Benefits Benefits $50,845 $50,845 $0
Travel 5,000 mi @ 0.445/mi $1,113 $1,113 $0
Overhead Indirect @ 20% $27,261 $27,261 $0
Other Contractual $1,665,385 $1,665,385 $0
Totals $1,875,347 $1,875,347 $0
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
Total itemized budget: $3,750,694
Total work element budget: $3,750,695
Cost sharing
Funding source/orgItem or service providedFY 07 est value ($)FY 08 est value ($)FY 09 est value ($)Cash or in-kind?Status
Totals $0 $0 $0

Section 9. Project future

FY 2010 estimated budget: $0
FY 2011 estimated budget: $0
Comments:

Future O&M costs:

Termination date: September 2009
Comments: Budget estimates are proposed through September 2008. However, it is likely that some projects may extend into 2009.

Final deliverables: Annual report to include implementation and Level I effectiveness monitoring results.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents


Reviews and recommendations

FY07 budget FY08 budget FY09 budget Total budget Type Category Recommendation
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs]
$0 $0 $0 $0 Expense ProvinceExpense Do Not Fund
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs]
$0 $0 $0 $0 ProvinceExpense

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Not fundable

NPCC comments: This proposal does not adequately justify the actions proposed in terms of specific benefits to fish and wildlife and description of methods and, thus, does not meet the ISRP review criteria. This proposal could have made a stronger case for replacing the culverts in question if it summarized what species would benefit from the passage improvements for each watershed, and estimated how many miles of stream would potentially be made available after road crossings were fixed. This work would replace 43 culverts in the Wenatchee subbasin. Only one of those culverts - Mill Creek in the Peshastin watershed - is described. The Mill Creek culvert is located near the mouth of the stream and is claimed to block steelhead spawning migrations and possibly other anadromous or adfluvial salmonids, although steelhead is the only species apart from westslope cutthroat that occurs in Mill Creek according to the distribution maps supplied with the proposal. No details about the other 42 culverts are given, however the map in attachment B shows they are located in clusters on Derby, Brender, Ruby, and East Fork Mission Creeks. This proposal should have provided information about habitat conditions upstream from the fish barriers in these streams so that replacing the problem culverts would be better justified. The proposal should have also described what structures will replace the culverts and how fish passage at all life history stages will be assured. Will modular bridges be used, bottomless arch culverts, low-water crossings (crossings that are inundated at high flow), or other types of road crossing structures? The narrative says that the Upper Columbia River Regional Technical Team's prioritization scheme will influence the order of repairing the crossings, but details are not provided. If some streams have a higher priority for passage improvements than others, the rationale should be given. It is unlikely that Level 1 monitoring will reveal whether the fish passage improvements achieve their desired objective unless actual stream surveys are carried out post-replacement.


ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Not fundable

NPCC comments: This proposal does not adequately justify the actions proposed in terms of specific benefits to fish and wildlife and description of methods and, thus, does not meet the ISRP review criteria. This proposal could have made a stronger case for replacing the culverts in question if it summarized what species would benefit from the passage improvements for each watershed, and estimated how many miles of stream would potentially be made available after road crossings were fixed. This work would replace 43 culverts in the Wenatchee subbasin. Only one of those culverts - Mill Creek in the Peshastin watershed - is described. The Mill Creek culvert is located near the mouth of the stream and is claimed to block steelhead spawning migrations and possibly other anadromous or adfluvial salmonids, although steelhead is the only species apart from westslope cutthroat that occurs in Mill Creek according to the distribution maps supplied with the proposal. No details about the other 42 culverts are given, however the map in attachment B shows they are located in clusters on Derby, Brender, Ruby, and East Fork Mission Creeks. This proposal should have provided information about habitat conditions upstream from the fish barriers in these streams so that replacing the problem culverts would be better justified. The proposal should have also described what structures will replace the culverts and how fish passage at all life history stages will be assured. Will modular bridges be used, bottomless arch culverts, low-water crossings (crossings that are inundated at high flow), or other types of road crossing structures? The narrative says that the Upper Columbia River Regional Technical Team's prioritization scheme will influence the order of repairing the crossings, but details are not provided. If some streams have a higher priority for passage improvements than others, the rationale should be given. It is unlikely that Level 1 monitoring will reveal whether the fish passage improvements achieve their desired objective unless actual stream surveys are carried out post-replacement.