Ellensburg Water Company Project (#10-1837R)

Coleman Creek-Ellensburg Water Company Project Proposal

  1. Project Overview
  1. Provide a brief summary of the project (note that further elaboration of this summary information is requested in Questions 2 and 3). Be sure toinclude:
  1. Location of the project in the watershed, including the name of the water bodies, upper and lower extent of the project (if only a portion of the watershed is targeted), and whether the project occurs in the near-shore, estuary, main stem, tributary, off channel, or other location.

This project is located on Coleman Creek, a tributary to Naneum, which is a tributary to WilsonCreek, which in turn is a tributary of the Yakima River. Work has been completed over the course of several years on the reaches between the project site and the Yakima River to ensure passage and add fish screens to irrigation diversions. Most of this work was completed as part of the Yakima Tributary Access & Habitat Program (YTAHP) efforts that have targeted the reaches of all the tributaries in the Kittitas Valley up to their intersections with the (Ellensburg Water Company) EWC canal.

  1. Overview of current project site conditions.

At this project site, the EWCcanal intersects with Coleman Creek. The creek passes under the canal via a pipe during irrigation season and through the canal during non-irrigation season. The EWC also maintains a diversion dam upstream from this intersection. That dam allows EWC to divert return flows within Coleman Creek into the canal. The dam is a fish passage barrier and does not have a proper fish screen. Both sites are located in areas that have small rural lots on the westside of the creek and large irrigated agricultural fields on the east side. The intersection of the creek and the canal are on the northern boundary of OlmsteadPark.

  1. Description of the proposed project and primary project objectives, such as how this project will contribute to restoring salmonids within the ecosystem.

The primary objective of the project is to achieve an additional 0.5 miles of rearing habitat in Coleman Creek for salmonids and improving water quality by fully and completely separating the EWC Canal from Coleman Creek at their intersection.

  1. When possible, list your sources of information by citing specific studies, reports, and other documents.
  2. Has any part of this project been previously reviewed or funded by the SRFB? If yes, please provide the project name and SRFB project number (or year of application if a project number is not available).If the project was withdrawn or not awarded SRFB funding, please describe how the current proposal differs from the original.

Engineering and design work were completed under the Coleman Creek Irrigation Re-design Project (#08-1949R). That grant was a design only award. The attached project designs are at 99% and can only be completed when construction is imminent.

  1. Salmon Recovery Context
  1. Describe the fish resources present at the site and targeted by this project.

Species / Life History Present (egg, juvenile, adult) / Current Population Trend (decline, stable, rising) / ESA Coverage (Y/N) / Life History Target (egg, juvenile, adult)
Mid Columbia Summer Steelhead / Egg, juvenile, adult / Rising / Y / Juvenile, Adult
Spring Chinook / Juvenile, Adult / Rising / N / Juvenile, Adult
Coho / Juvenile, Adult / Rising / N / Juvenile, Adult
  1. Describe the nature, source, and extent of the problem that the project will address. Include a detailed description of site conditions and other current and historic factors important to understanding the need for this project. Be specific – avoid general statements. (acquisition, fish passage, diversions, and screening projects should refer to the supplemental questions later in this worksheet for information to include in their problem statement.)

The problems addressed by this project are the fish passage barriers and an unscreened surface water diversion that jeopardizes both resident and anadromous fish. The unscreened diversion operated by the EWC is a full barrier to fish passage when the check boards are in place and a partial barrier when they are not.

The EWCcanal and Coleman Creek intersection is more complicated than other intersections (e.g. Currier Creek and Cooke Creek) where similar projects have been implemented to separate canal and creek water. At the Coleman Creek intersection, the creek passes under the canal via a pipe. The barrier status of that pipe is assumed to be partial to full depending on flow, although it is difficult to assess because the outlet is completely submerged. During the non-irrigation season, the creek passes under the canal, but it also can pass through the canal in higher flows. During irrigation season, the canal and the creek are separated only by check boards on either bank of the canal. Immediately adjacent to the intersection of the creek and the canal is N. Ferguson Road. There are EWC headgates immediately downstream as well.

  1. Discuss how this project fits within your regional recovery plan or local lead entity strategy to restore or protect salmonid habitat in the watershed (i.e., does the project address a priority action, occur in a priority area, or target priority fish species?).

Coleman Creek is mentioned in the Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan- Extracted from the 2005 Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan with Updates (2009). In reference to tributaries including Parke, Cherry and Coleman Creek on page 135, the plan states: “The lower ends of these tributaries have high value as off-channel rearing habitat for the adjoining reach of the mainstem Yakima, and are being restored to serve as such through YTAHP restoration efforts”. This project is a follow-up to projects that have removed or will be addressing removal/correction of downstream barriers on Coleman Creek. In 2004, the first barrier (stream mile 0.60) was removed as part of the Yakima Tributary Access & Habitat Program (YTAHP). Subsequent monitoring (in 2007) as part of YTAHP confirmed that juvenile O. mykiss and spring Chinook were present at stream mile 1.03 just downstream of the next barrier. In 2009/2010, the KCCD (as part of YTAHP) worked to provide both screening and passage at this diversion and the next at stream mile 1.6. Planning for correction of the next two barriers is being address by an existing SRFB grant (Coleman Creek Irrigation Redesign 08-1949R).

Conely, Alex, et al., Yakima Steelhead Recovery Plan Extracted from the 2005 YakimaSubbasin Salmon Recovery Plan with Updates, (YakimaBasin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board, 2009), 288.

The Lead Entity Strategy, in reference to the Wilson/Naneum/Cherry MSA, includes an action to “Institute program or process for analysis, goal setting and prioritization of obstruction removal /modification and habitat improvement”. YTAHP has worked to do just this by working methodically upstream on Coleman Creek and other tributaries in the KittitasValley to open additional habitat and protect fish from entrainment.

  1. Describe the consequences of not conducting this project at this time. Consider the current level and imminence of risk to habitat in your discussion.

The Yakima Tributary Access & Habitat Program (YTAHP) has gained momentum over the last several years and achieved safe fish passage into a number of Yakima River tributaries in the KittitasValley. The consequence of not conducting the project at this time is the loss of momentum and a longer wait until additional habitat is available in Coleman Creek.

  1. When possible, list your sources of information by citing specific studies, reports, and other documents.
  2. Project Design
  1. Provide a detailed description of the project size,scope, design,and how it will address the problem described in Section 2B. Describe specific restoration methods and design elements you plan to employ. (Acquisition-only projects need not respond to this question.)

The project will include the demolition and removal of the facilities located at the intersection of the EWC canal and Coleman Creek. This includes the pipe that currently passes Coleman Creek under the canal, the headgates on either side of N.Ferguson Road, and the N.Ferguson Road bridge. An inverted siphon will be constructed to pass the EWC canal under Coleman Creek and rebuild the streambed at this location.

At the location of the irrigation diversion, the existing channel spanning concrete structure will be removed and replaced with a diversion structure. That structure will include both a 3 step fishway and a fish screen, along with automated headgates to ensure that the diversion rate does not exceed the authorized amount and that a minimum flow is left in Coleman Creek.

Together, these two new structures will completely separate the canal from the creek, allow for fish passage into an additional 0.5 miles of stream, and protect fish from entrainment in the canal.

  1. If restoration will occur in phases, explain individual sequencing steps, and which of these steps is included in this application.(Acquisition-only projects need not respond to this question.)

This project will not occur in phases.

  1. Describe the long-term stewardship and maintenance obligations for the project or acquired land. For acquisition and combination projects, identify any planned use of the property, including upland areas.

The long term stewardship of the site will be the responsibility of the EWC. This project may provide maintenance of the tree and shrub planting to ensure survival rates are met in the first 3 years.

  1. Project Development
  1. Explain how the project’s cost estimates were determined.

Project costs were determined by the engineering firm that completed the 99% designs for the project. They based their estimate on projects that were bid in 2009 and 2010. The cost estimate was part of the SRFB application that produced the designs.

  1. Describe other approaches, opportunities, and design alternatives that were considered to achieve the project’s objectives.

The project designs were reviewed three times during the design process by the EWC manager and YTAHP Technical Work Group. Design options considered were based on the two previous projects at the Cooke Creek and Currier Creek intersections with the EWC canal that were constructed in2003 and 2008.

  1. Have members of the community, recreational user groups, adjacent landowners, or others been contacted about this project? Describe any concerns about the project raised from these contacts and how those concerns were or will be addressed.

Adjacent landowners have been contacted and are aware of the project. No major concerns have been raised and all interested parties have requested to participate in the final project reviews before the project is constructed.

  1. Include a Partner Contribution Form (Appendix J), when required, from each partner outlining the partner’s role and contribution to the project. State agencies are required to have a local partner that is independently eligible to be a project sponsor. A Partner Contribution Form is recommended, but not required, from partners providing third-party match.
  2. List all landowner name. Include a signed Landowner Acknowledgement Form (Appendix K) from each landowner acknowledging that his or her property is proposed for SRFB funding consideration. If a restoration project covers a large area and encompasses numerous properties, Landowner Acknowledgement Forms are not required. For sponsors proposing work on their own property, this form is not required. For multi-site acquisition projects involving a relatively large group of landowners, include, at a minimum, signed Landowner Acknowledgement Forms for all known priority parcels.

EllensburgWater Company – They have a right-of-way that covers their canal and the intersection.

KittitasCounty- The location of the proposed inverted siphon crosses through N.Ferguson Road.

Patrick Van de Venter- Landowner where the irrigation diversion is located

  1. Describe your experience managing this type of project.

KCCD has successfully managed numerous projects of this size and scope with funding through the Salmon Recovery Funding Board and various other agencies for nearly a decade. KCCD worked with EWC on the Currier Creek project, which is very similar to this one. KCCD staff average 4-5 years experience with projects of this type.

  1. Tasks and Schedule

The following Tasks may be delayed a year, depending in the availability of matching funds.

Task 1: Pre-Construction Preparation (September 2010 to July 2011). Finalize project design and engineering plans, materials list and cost estimates; complete environmental and cultural documentation as needed and complete and apply for permits.

Task 2: Contractor Selection (Aug 2011-Sept 2011). Using prepared bid documents, issue Invitation to Bid, per engineer’s specifications. Select contractor(s).

Task 3: Construction (Oct 2011-Mar 2012). Construct and install siphon, fish screen and diversion accoutrements, fish passage structure, in-stream habitat modifications.

Task 4: Riparian Habitat (Spring or Fall 2012). Implement riparian enhancements near fish screen and passage structure, as fits with system operations.

  1. Constraints and Uncertainties

Each project should include an adaptive management approach that provides for contingency planning.State any constraints, uncertainties, possible problems, delays, or unanticipated expenses that may hinder completion of the project.Explain how you will address these issues as they arise and their likely impact on the project.

The primary uncertainty associated with this project is the ability to acquire the matching funds. The Department of Ecology has various funding sources that may be matched to this proposal. They include the Centennial Clean Water/319 Funds and the Conveyance Infrastructure program. Until applications can be submitted and ranked, it’s unknown whether the project will be fully funded.

Also, work continues on the two downstream barriers that were conceptually addressed through the previous planning grant. No landowner agreements have been completed, so it’s possible that these landowners (one private, one state) may not agree to project plans.

  1. Detailed project cost estimate. Please include a detailed project cost estimate and attach in PRISM. Clearly label the attachment in PRISM “Cost Estimate.” This will help the local review process and the SRFBReview Panel better understand the project cost details.

Supplemental Questions

  1. Projects involving acquisitions (applies to both acquisition-only and combination projects) answer the following questions

Not applicable

  1. Fish Passage Projects– Answer the following questions:
  1. Information to include in item 2B: Concisely describe the passage problem (outfall, velocity, slope, etc). Describe the current barrier (age, material, shape, and condition). Is the structure a complete or partial barrier? Describe the amount and quality of habitat to open if the barrier is corrected.
  2. Project Design
  1. If a culvert is proposed, does it employ a stream simulation, no slope, hydraulic, or other design?

Not applicable.

  1. Has the project received a Priority Index (PI) Number? If so, provide the PI number and indicate the method used: Physical survey, reduced sample full survey, expanded threshold determination, or Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife generated PI (list source, such as a study or inventory).

This site has not received a PI number.

  1. Identify if there are additional fish passage barriers downstream or upstream of this project.

There are two fish passage barriers downstream of this project. Both are being addressed through the Yakima Tributary Access & Habitat Program, although landowner/water right holder agreements have not yet been reached. There are several barriers upstream of the site, the nearest being approximately 0.5 miles upstream. See attached visual.

  1. Complete and attach the Barrier Evaluation Form and Correction Analysis Form. These forms are available in Appendix R of thismanual and on the RCO Web site at
  1. Diversions and Screening Projects– Answer the following questions:
  1. Information to include in item 2B: If the diversion is equipped with a fish screen, provide details of why it is not functioning properly from a fish protection perspective (entrainment or impingement).
  2. Project design
  1. Has the project received a Screening Priority Index (SPI) number? If yes, provide the SPI and indicate if the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife developed the SPI.

No SPI has been established for this site.

  1. Is this a pump or gravity diversion?

Gravity Diversion

  1. What is the flow of the diversion in gallons per minute (gpm)? How was the flow determined (water right; meter – system meter; calculated from irrigation system components, or direct measurement during peak spring/summer diversion using a flow meter)?

The diversion can operate at a maximum of 8,000 gpm. This includes the return flow right for EWC as well as a neighboring landowner’s delivery of Cascade Irrigation District water.

  1. If it is not possible to determine the flow, then provide the bank-full, cross-sectional area of the ditch, measured 100-300 feet downstream of the point of diversion. Refer to page 25 of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Fish Passage Barrier and Screening Assessment and Prioritization Manual for instructions on how to collect this information.
  2. How much water, if any, will be saved as a result of this project? Will water be put into trust, or are there plans to transfer water rights?

No water savings will result from this project.

Kittitas County Conservation District

Page 1 of 8