200300100 - Manastash Creek Passage & Screening
Sponsor: Kittitas County Conservation District
Budgets: FY07: $1,181,220 | FY08: $492,290 | FY09: $445,190
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.
Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)
Funding category: Capital
Recommended budgets: FY07: $500,000 | FY08: $500,000 | FY09: $500,000
ISRP final recommendation: Not fundable (Qualified)
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.
Response loop edit
See the sponsor's revised proposal from the response loop. You'll be taken to CBFWA's proposal system in Section 10 where most sponsors uploaded revised narratives or other responses to the ISRP comments.
State/province recommendation: Washington
Review group: Washington list
Recommended budgets: FY07: (n/a) | FY08: (n/a) | FY09: (n/a)
Comment: See Washington guidance