FY07-09 proposal 200300100
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Manastash Crk Passage & Screening |
| Proposal ID | 200300100 |
| Organization | Kittitas County Conservation District |
| Short description | The 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 transfer | Informaton 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
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| 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
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 ESUsecondary: Chinook Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESU
secondary: Coho Unspecified Population
secondary: Bull Trout
secondary: Rainbow Trout
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|---|
| 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 source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est 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
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: | $1,220,160 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | 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.