Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2007-398-00 - Yakima Basinwide Tributary Passage and Flow Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2007-398-00 - Yakima Basinwide Tributary Passage and Flow

Please Note: This project is the product of one or more merges and/or splits from other projects. Historical data automatically included here are limited to the current project and previous generation (the “parent” projects) only. The Project Relationships section details the nature of the relationships between this project and the previous generation. To learn about the complete ancestry of this project, please review the Project Relationships section on the Project Summary page of each parent project.

Project Number:
2007-398-00
Title:
Yakima Basinwide Tributary Passage and Flow
Summary:
The Manastash Flow Enhancement project is part of a larger restoration project in the Manastash Creek watershed to provide fish screens, remove fish passage barriers and improve in-stream flow.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Washington Resource Conservation and Development (Non-Profit)
Starting FY:
2007
Ending FY:
2018
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Plateau Yakima 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Spring ESU
Coho - Lower Columbia River ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS
Steelhead - Upper Columbia River DPS
Trout, Bull
Trout, Rainbow
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

No photos have been uploaded yet for this project.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2018 (Previous) $901,476 $901,476 $901,476 $901,476 $849,826

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $901,476 $901,476 $901,476 $849,826
FY2019 (Current) $0 $801,476 $801,476 $99,117

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $0 $801,476 $801,476 $99,117
FY2020 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $0 $0 $0 $0
Capital SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2018 (Previous) $0 $0 $0 $0

FY2019 (Current) $0 $0 $0 $0

FY2020 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Oct-2018

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2018 - FY2020)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2018 Expense $901,476 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY18 SOY Budgets 07/17/2017

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2019
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2018 $996,164 (Draft) 52 % (Draft)
2017 $711,999 (Draft) 44 % (Draft)
2016 $1,317,579 (Draft) 59 % (Draft)
2015 $1,884,840 (Draft) 68 % (Draft)
2014 $5,291,025 (Draft) 85 % (Draft)
2013 $1,925,554 (Draft) 68 % (Draft)
2012 $1,082,498 (Draft) 42 % (Draft)
2011 $1,870,344 (Draft) 55 % (Draft)
2010 $2,695,117 (Draft) 65 % (Draft)
2009 $2,178,680 (Draft) 41 % (Draft)
2008 $1,119,030 47 %
2007 $952,962 (Draft) 39 % (Draft)

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Capital Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
BPA-003324 Bonneville Power Administration Realty Support for ROW Acquisition Active $0 10/1/2006 - 9/30/2007
BPA-004328 Bonneville Power Administration Realty Support for ROW acquisition Active $14,500 10/1/2008 - 9/30/2009
BPA-005762 Bonneville Power Administration Land & realty svcs Active $33,800 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
BPA-004327 Bonneville Power Administration Realty Support for ROW Acquisition Active $0 10/1/2008 - 9/30/2009
BPA-005763 Bonneville Power Administration Realty Svcs Active $47,500 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
BPA-005425 Bonneville Power Administration TBL Land Support Active $3,237 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
78789 SOW Washington Resource Conservation and Development 2007-398-00 EXP YTAHP 2018 Issued $901,476 4/1/2018 - 3/31/2019
CR-328146 SOW Washington Resource Conservation and Development 2007-398-00 EXP YAKIMA BASINWIDE TRIBUTARY PASSAGE & FLOW Pending $801,476 4/1/2019 - 3/31/2020



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):30
Completed:20
On time:20
Status Reports
Completed:163
On time:82
Avg Days Late:23

Historical from: 2003-001-00
Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
429 REL 27 429 REL 28 PI 200300100 MANASTASH CREEK CONSOLIDATED DIVERSION PROJECT Fishpro, Inc. 04/2004 04/2004 History 6 5 0 0 2 7 71.43% 0
23380 REL 4 23380 REL 6, 54966 2003-001-00 CAP MANASTASH FINAL DESIGN/CONST. MGMT HDR Constructors, Inc. 06/2006 06/2006 Closed 31 26 0 0 0 26 100.00% 6
23380 REL 2 2003-01-00 EXP MANASTASH PERMITTING SUPPORT Fishpro, Inc. 07/2006 07/2006 History 9 0 0 0 2 2 0.00% 0
BPA-005559 Land Acquisition costs Bonneville Power Administration 10/2008 10/2008 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 196 353 23 0 128 504 74.60% 124


Historical from: 2002-025-01
Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
11926 24722, 30496 2002-025-01 YAKIMA TRIBUTARY ACCESS & HABITAT PROGRAM PHASE 2 Washington Resource Conservation and Development 10/2002 10/2002 History 7 56 1 0 21 78 73.08% 8
30495 2002-025-01 EXP YAKIMA TRIBUTARY ACCESS AND HABITAT PROJECT Washington Resource Conservation and Development 10/2006 10/2006 History 2 4 0 0 0 4 100.00% 0
Project Totals 196 353 23 0 128 504 74.60% 124


Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
BPA-003324 Realty Support for ROW Acquisition Bonneville Power Administration 10/2006 10/2006 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
32462 37461, 42458, 46861, 51799, 56682, 60457, 64515, 68714, 71584, 75738, 78789 200739800 EXP YAKIMA TRIB/PASS&FLOW - YTAHP Washington Resource Conservation and Development 04/2007 04/2007 Pending 46 99 22 0 29 150 80.67% 6
32463 37460, 42079, 46802, 52299, 56617, 60456, 64516, 68444 200739800 CAP YAKIMA TRIB/PASS&FLOW- YTAHP Washington Resource Conservation and Development 04/2007 04/2007 Closed 36 107 0 0 62 169 63.31% 96
35145 44291, 54283 200739800 EXP MANASTASH FLOW ENHANCEMENT Kittitas County Conservation District 09/2007 09/2007 Closed 20 8 0 0 0 8 100.00% 1
35408 45233, 58058 200739800 CAP MANASTASH FLOW ENHANCEMENT Kittitas County Conservation District 09/2007 09/2007 Closed 26 39 0 0 12 51 76.47% 7
BPA-004327 Realty Support for ROW Acquisition Bonneville Power Administration 10/2008 10/2008 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-004328 Realty Support for ROW acquisition Bonneville Power Administration 10/2008 10/2008 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
41195 2007-398-00 CAP MANASTASH SCREEN FABRICATION - WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 02/2009 02/2009 Closed 9 4 0 0 0 4 100.00% 0
BPA-005762 Land & realty svcs Bonneville Power Administration 10/2009 10/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-005763 Realty Svcs Bonneville Power Administration 10/2009 10/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-005425 TBL Land Support Bonneville Power Administration 10/2010 10/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
57921 2007-398-00 CAP YAKIMA B TRIB/PASS & FLOW-CAP HDR Constructors, Inc. 07/2012 07/2012 Closed 4 5 0 0 0 5 100.00% 0
Project Totals 196 353 23 0 128 504 74.60% 124


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2007-398-00-NPCC-20131126
Project: 2007-398-00 - Yakima Basinwide Tributary Passage and Flow
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-2007-398-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement through FY 2018. See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: A. Implement Monitoring, and Evaluation at a Regional Scale—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-398-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 2007-398-00 - Yakima Basinwide Tributary Passage and Flow
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-2007-398-00
Completed Date: 6/11/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:

This project is well done, especially with their efforts to build and maintain a team of partners from many agencies and groups. As an example of the type of effort, members of the team meet monthly to ensure that all members are aware of impending work, accomplishments, identify special needs, and discuss emerging issues. Additionally, the team has had discussions about their efforts in light of climate change and has discussed options. We commend the personnel on their work and suggest this project could be used as an example for other projects.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The sponsors clearly described the significance of their efforts relative to regional programs such as the 2009 Fish and Wildlife Program, the 2008 BiOp, and the Yakima Subbasin Plan.

The sponsors also strongly made the point that tributary rearing is, for a number of reasons, a life history pattern more beneficial to salmon and steelhead than is mainstem rearing provided the habitat is of high quality and the out-migrants are not entrained in irrigation systems. The ISRP was pleased to see the sponsor’s use of literature citations to support the association between project activities and potential benefits to fish. This could serve as an example for other habitat projects to follow on the use of simple fish metrics to demonstrate benefits as well as the use of literature citations. This approach helps connect the project work to expected benefits for fishery resources.

The five objectives were clearly presented and reasonable.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

The ISRP appreciated the lengthy, extensive presentation of accomplishments. There are detailed discussions of monitoring and assessing benefits to anadromous and resident fishes. The proposal provided good detail and photos for the several examples of completed projects highlighted in this proposal. Since 2003, YTAHP has implemented 133 projects, screened 190 cfs, and added 217 miles of rearing and spawning habitat.

The review team offers the following as an example of the team’s use of coordinated adaptive management. When an ISRP team member asked the sponsors about their efforts to prioritize and respond to changes, he was told that field personnel rely heavily on Technical Working Groups (TWG) to help prioritize actions. Currently, TWG are most involved during the engineering phase to help ensure that what happens on the ground will meet needs of the fish and habitat, but because of good working relationships, TWGs are often used.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

One of the strengths of this project is its relationship to other entities in the region. The presentation of emerging limiting factors is well done.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The sponsors describe 51 deliverables. The ISRP team was pleased to read the detailed description of work planned and believed this is an indication of team organization. The ISRP also interpreted these descriptions as an indication that there is some acceptance of the program by private landowners.

The ISRP would have appreciated some degree of prioritization among the numerous individual sites to be screened or to receive other project actions. It is not clear that all 51 projects can be completed in the funding cycle.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The ISRP appreciated the sponsor’s inclusion of fish metrics, such as redds, before and after past actions.

First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
First Round ISRP Comment:

This project is well done, especially with their efforts to build and maintain a team of partners from many agencies and groups. As an example of the type of effort, members of the team meet monthly to ensure that all members are aware of impending work, accomplishments, identify special needs, and discuss emerging issues. Additionally, the team has had discussions about their efforts in light of climate change and has discussed options. We commend the personnel on their work and suggest this project could be used as an example for other projects.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The sponsors clearly described the significance of their efforts relative to regional programs such as the 2009 Fish and Wildlife Program, the 2008 BiOp, and the Yakima Subbasin Plan.

The sponsors also strongly made the point that tributary rearing is, for a number of reasons, a life history pattern more beneficial to salmon and steelhead than is mainstem rearing provided the habitat is of high quality and the out-migrants are not entrained in irrigation systems. The ISRP was pleased to see the sponsor’s use of literature citations to support the association between project activities and potential benefits to fish. This could serve as an example for other habitat projects to follow on the use of simple fish metrics to demonstrate benefits as well as the use of literature citations. This approach helps connect the project work to expected benefits for fishery resources.

The five objectives were clearly presented and reasonable.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

The ISRP appreciated the lengthy, extensive presentation of accomplishments. There are detailed discussions of monitoring and assessing benefits to anadromous and resident fishes. The proposal provided good detail and photos for the several examples of completed projects highlighted in this proposal. Since 2003, YTAHP has implemented 133 projects, screened 190 cfs, and added 217 miles of rearing and spawning habitat.

The review team offers the following as an example of the team’s use of coordinated adaptive management. When an ISRP team member asked the sponsors about their efforts to prioritize and respond to changes, he was told that field personnel rely heavily on Technical Working Groups (TWG) to help prioritize actions. Currently, TWG are most involved during the engineering phase to help ensure that what happens on the ground will meet needs of the fish and habitat, but because of good working relationships, TWGs are often used.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

One of the strengths of this project is its relationship to other entities in the region. The presentation of emerging limiting factors is well done.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The sponsors describe 51 deliverables. The ISRP team was pleased to read the detailed description of work planned and believed this is an indication of team organization. The ISRP also interpreted these descriptions as an indication that there is some acceptance of the program by private landowners.

The ISRP would have appreciated some degree of prioritization among the numerous individual sites to be screened or to receive other project actions. It is not clear that all 51 projects can be completed in the funding cycle.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The ISRP appreciated the sponsor’s inclusion of fish metrics, such as redds, before and after past actions.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 1:22:56 PM.
Documentation Links:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2007-020-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2007-020-00 - Manastash Instream Flow Enhanc
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Capital: On BPA's list of possible capital project. Need to determine capital elements. ISRP not fundable (qualified): habitat m&e programmatic issue. See decision memo discussion. Expense: ISRP not fundable (qualified): programmatic habitat m&e issue, see decision memo discussion. Fund from the Water/land brokerage if possible. If it does get funded through the water/land brokerage, then funding should go to 200300100. Request restoration of expense funds through the within-year request process to implement projects. No capital component.
Assessment Number: 2003-001-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2003-001-00 - Manastash Creek Fish Passage and Screening
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments:
Assessment Number: 2002-025-01-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2002-025-01 - Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat Program (YTAHP)
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: ISRP fundable (qualified): Programmatic Issue: habitat m&e. See decision memo discussion. On BPA's list of possible capital project. Request restoration of expense funds through the within-year request process to implement projects.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-020-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2007-020-00 - Manastash Instream Flow Enhanc
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Does Not Meet Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The link with project 200300100 is made clearer in the response and the sequential nature of the two efforts (screening followed by flow enhancement) makes sense, but when this proposal and project 200300100 are considered together the ISRP maintains its concern that the projected benefits to the target fish species of the irrigation diversion screening and the experimental flow pulse are inadequately monitored. Therefore, this proposal is ranked Not Fundable because of its weak monitoring and evaluation section; however, the proposal does rate a "Qualified" because adding flow, removing barriers, and screening diversions are all actions that have the potential to be beneficial to fish populations. We encourage the project sponsors to re-submit the two proposals (next time combined) with a stronger biological monitoring component at the next solicitation.

The response addressed some of the ISRP's questions and project sponsors have demonstrated a willingness to alter their proposal in a beneficial way. In particular, their willingness to approach the flow pulse as an experiment is worthwhile, although the revision provides no more specific details about how the experiment would be conducted than the original proposal (e.g., what would be the control situation?). Actual experimental design is left to future planning. Assurances that that the conserved water would be dedicated to increasing stream flow is a critical item that was not well described in the initial proposal but was made clear in the response. There was a good faith effort to estimate the surface flow savings for Manastash Creek, although admittedly the estimate was somewhat crude. It was helpful that the project sponsors stated all additional flow would be dedicated to the WDOE's water trust program.

The response does describe water quality monitoring, but it does not address the ISRP's strong suggestion that steelhead use of the watershed be studied in order to help evaluate the pulse flow treatment. We believe this should be a critical part of the work and encourage the sponsors to work with other stakeholders to ensure that an effective steelhead monitoring program is formulated. Although we do not recommend the project for funding at this time, we believe it can be successfully accomplished as an adaptive management experiment with clear treatments and controls coupled with development of an adequate biological monitoring effort.
Documentation Links:
Assessment Number: 2003-001-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2003-001-00 - Manastash Creek Fish Passage and Screening
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Does Not Meet Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
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.
Documentation Links:
Assessment Number: 2002-025-01-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2002-025-01 - Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat Program (YTAHP)
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
This project is in its early years and has the potential to produce some valuable information to guide further projects. The sponsors provided a good summary of passage work. However, there was no effort made in the proposal to translate the structural changes being made in these tributaries into biological changes and the project proposal did not contain an adequate description of benefits to fish populations. The response was very thin in terms of realized or potential benefits to fish. The sponsors are referred to Marmorek et al (2004) (see below) for specific information and methods to assess effectiveness of screening in the Yakima River basin. Reporting of past results was diffused throughout the narrative.

The sponsors concurred with the ISRP that M&E is needed and a newly created Monitoring Plan (submitted to BPA last year) was included in the response. In the response they state that in the near future empirical data will be available to show actual benefits to steelhead and other fish species. However, the commitment to monitoring for benefits to fish still appears tentative. Statements in the response such as, "As long as project sites provide a fish friendly environment, habitat improvements are maintained, and the structures are functioning as intended and meeting the needs of water users/landowners/operators, projects will be considered successful." Another statement, "It is generally assumed that removal of fish passage barriers and correctly designed fish passage structures leads to reestablished access for salmonids" indicates that the sponsors need to be encouraged to include biologically oriented monitoring in addition to engineering indicators of success. One part of the monitoring plan will focus on selected tributaries, which harks to an index stream approach rather than the highly regarded probabilistic approach. Guidance may be required to make sure the proponents use appropriate monitoring methods. Perhaps there is scope to use the Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat Program as a demonstration project to develop and use realistic and cost-effective monitoring protocols that could be used elsewhere in the Columbia River Basin.

This Fundable recommendation is Qualified to indicate that a better monitoring protocol should be developed so project staff can report on fish results. In developing the monitoring design they should consider a probabilistic design, rather than an index stream approach. The ISRP will look for better reporting in the next review. This monitoring can be done through another agency/entity, but the sponsors should describe those efforts and report the results.

Reference: Marmorek et al 2004. A Multiple Watershed Approach to Assessing the Effects of Habitat Restoration Actions on Anadromous and Resident Fish Populations. 420 p. (efw.bpa.gov/publications/H00012481-1.pdf).
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 2007-020-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2007-020-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: No Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: Close piping of irrigation, other efficiencies (assuming irrigators not required to do).
Assessment Number: 2003-001-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2003-001-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 2 - May be reasonable
Comment: Irrigation division screening; assuming that irrigation owners/diverters not already required to screen, cost share appears reasonable.
Assessment Number: 2002-025-01-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2002-025-01
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 2 - May be reasonable
Comment: Multiple tributary fish passage related activities; other entities may be authorized required; recommend confirming that screening criteria or other mechanism in place to ensure specific projects are not funded by BPA when another entity already required to perform.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-398-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2007-398-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 11/16/2007
Capital Rating: Qualifies for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: Fish Passage Improvement
Comment: This project is a result of combining projects: 2002-025-01 Yakima Tributary Access & Habitat Program; 2003-001-00 Manastash Creek passage & Screening; and 2007-020-00 Manastash Instream Flow Enhancement. Capital funding approval submitted by BPA COTR. The COTR, COTR's Manager and BPA Accountant certified that the request meets the BPA F&W capital policy and is approved for capital funding (if capital funds are available). Based on civil engineers assessment, rock weirs are designed for 100-year floods and at least 20-year duration.
Assessment Number: 2007-020-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2007-020-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None
Assessment Number: 2003-001-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2003-001-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None
Assessment Number: 2002-025-01-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2002-025-01
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Project Relationships: This project Merged From 2007-020-00 effective on 7/2/2007
Relationship Description: Move all work and budgets from projects 2002-025-01, 2003-001-00 and 2007-020-00 into project 2007-398-00.

This project Merged From 2003-001-00 effective on 7/2/2007
Relationship Description: Move all work and budgets from projects 2002-025-01, 2003-001-00 and 2007-020-00 into project 2007-398-00.

This project Merged From 2002-025-01 effective on 7/2/2007
Relationship Description: Move all work and budgets from projects 2002-025-01, 2003-001-00 and 2007-020-00 into project 2007-398-00.


Name Role Organization
Anna Lael Project Lead Kittitas County Conservation District
Sherry Swanson Technical Contact Kittitas County Conservation District
Dave Myra (Inactive) Project Lead Washington Resource Conservation and Development
Sherry Jeffery Project Lead HDR Engineering, Inc.
Ed Donahue (Inactive) Supervisor Fishpro, Inc.
Peter Lofy Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Michael Garello Project Lead Fishpro, Inc.
Michael Milstein (Inactive) Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Molly Moreland (Inactive) Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
John Tyler Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Sarah Bettmann Administrative Contact HDR Constructors, Inc.
Brian Miller Project Lead Washington Resource Conservation and Development
Michelle O'Malley Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Mark Crowley Technical Contact Kittitas County Conservation District
Brenda Aguirre Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration