This is a long-established program from a team that appears to have mastered the tasks involved and continues to improve. The detailed review of accomplishments was nicely organized and very impressive. The program appears to be functioning at a high level and providing major benefits to anadromous fish. Prioritization seems to be linked to land and water acquisitions.

It was clearly evident from the site visit that the screening projects are a linchpin in initiating restoration work. Establishing a defined and measurable control of stream flow in conjunction with screen installation enables multifaceted operations that have substantial benefits to anadromous and resident fish and wildlife. In that regard the project is appropriately a planning and coordination effort for restoration projects that are implemented by #2007-399-00.

The sponsor highlighted the need for O&M. To continue to secure the benefits of the screens, O&M costs need to be adequately considered via BPA and Mitchell Act funding.

A mainstem inventory has been completed, but a comprehensive inventory of water diversion and entrainment problems in tributaries and a plan to fix the problems should be developed as a means to guide this program into the future. The proposal notes that 50 tributaries were surveyed for problems and this information is used to prioritize projects.

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

This project continues to tackle a long list of screening diversions and providing passage at diversions in the study area. According to the proposal, there are over 700 diversions of which less than half have been screened or converted to pumping, so there is plenty of work to do yet. In the last 5 years, the program has expanded into the Clearwater drainage, especially the Potlatch River.

The proposal provides adequate information to show its significance to regional programs. Technical background is adequate in that it has some quantitative estimates of diversion dams and what has been accomplished to date, including numbers of fish that have been impacted in some areas.

There was some mention that problems in 50 tributaries had been identified, and more information is being gathered about all of the remaining issues, including potential constraints that might hinder restoration and the overall benefit to salmon once the restoration is complete. Given that this is a planning and coordination project, reviewers will in future be expecting a more comprehensive list of potential projects, including information on whether landowner acceptance may be a hindrance.

Objectives need to be quantitative whenever possible. Although this project was largely a planning and coordination effort that facilitated the implementation of projects by BPA Project 2007-399-00, a proposed deliverable included a number of field activities (deliverable 1: realign Bayhorse Creek), which unfortunately was not seen or discussed during the site visit.

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

There is a long list of projects that have been completed. The proposal indicates that some random inspections, in addition to O &M, are done to ensure that the screens are still working properly. There is a long list of learning that has taken place over the years on improving the design of the screens and dealing with problems at the diversions.

The proposal provides an informative table showing numbers of gravity diversions, diversion dams, and pump screens that have been treated during each year since 1994. Beginning in 2008 with one exception, this project only planned, coordinated, and designed projects. Unfortunately, the table did not list the number of projects by category that it successfully facilitated to completion.

A few examples of changes in management were described, with photos, and were helpful for reviewers, but no specific adaptive management approach was mentioned. A key issue seems to be the ability to convince landowners to work with the program to improve water diversions, entrainment, and fish resources. A recent publication in a fisheries journal was completed. This accomplishment is commendable.

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

The proposal identified two emerging issues that are problematic: small hydro development and invasive bivalves. The sponsors note that they are working with the State of Idaho to adequately regulate small hydro and minimize its impacts on fish resources, including ESA listed species, but apparently they have not been fully successful. Given the millions of dollars spent in Idaho on salmon restoration and ESA salmon issues, the sponsor may want to raise this issue with the Council and examine the “Protected Areas” portion of the 2009 Fish and Wildlife Program, Appendix B: Hydroelectric Development Conditions, Section 2, Protected Areas (page 80).

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

A number of deliverables are listed. The nature of the deliverables is highly variable, ranging from “attend meetings” to “hydroseed disturbed ground” to “administrative oversight.” Quantitative deliverables should be estimated when appropriate, for example Deliverable 14: fish passage barrier elimination. How many barriers will be eliminated? This is reportedly a facilitation effort; how many fish screen restoration activities will it facilitate during the next five years?

Most deliverables did not require methods. A brief description of sampling for fish presence/absence was provided prior to project implementation. There was no referral to MonitoringMethods.org. The proposal should identify what is being done to determine success of the restoration project after completion or refer to the implementation project, assuming it has a monitoring component.

This is a long-established program from a team that appears to have mastered the tasks involved and continues to improve. The detailed review of accomplishments was nicely organized and very impressive. The program appears to be functioning at a high level and providing major benefits to anadromous fish. Prioritization seems to be linked to land and water acquisitions.

It was clearly evident from the site visit that the screening projects are a linchpin in initiating restoration work. Establishing a defined and measurable control of stream flow in conjunction with screen installation enables multifaceted operations that have substantial benefits to anadromous and resident fish and wildlife. In that regard the project is appropriately a planning and coordination effort for restoration projects that are implemented by #2007-399-00.

The sponsor highlighted the need for O&M. To continue to secure the benefits of the screens, O&M costs need to be adequately considered via BPA and Mitchell Act funding.

A mainstem inventory has been completed, but a comprehensive inventory of water diversion and entrainment problems in tributaries and a plan to fix the problems should be developed as a means to guide this program into the future. The proposal notes that 50 tributaries were surveyed for problems and this information is used to prioritize projects.

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

This project continues to tackle a long list of screening diversions and providing passage at diversions in the study area. According to the proposal, there are over 700 diversions of which less than half have been screened or converted to pumping, so there is plenty of work to do yet. In the last 5 years, the program has expanded into the Clearwater drainage, especially the Potlatch River.

The proposal provides adequate information to show its significance to regional programs. Technical background is adequate in that it has some quantitative estimates of diversion dams and what has been accomplished to date, including numbers of fish that have been impacted in some areas.

There was some mention that problems in 50 tributaries had been identified, and more information is being gathered about all of the remaining issues, including potential constraints that might hinder restoration and the overall benefit to salmon once the restoration is complete. Given that this is a planning and coordination project, reviewers will in future be expecting a more comprehensive list of potential projects, including information on whether landowner acceptance may be a hindrance.

Objectives need to be quantitative whenever possible. Although this project was largely a planning and coordination effort that facilitated the implementation of projects by BPA Project 2007-399-00, a proposed deliverable included a number of field activities (deliverable 1: realign Bayhorse Creek), which unfortunately was not seen or discussed during the site visit.

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

There is a long list of projects that have been completed. The proposal indicates that some random inspections, in addition to O &M, are done to ensure that the screens are still working properly. There is a long list of learning that has taken place over the years on improving the design of the screens and dealing with problems at the diversions.

The proposal provides an informative table showing numbers of gravity diversions, diversion dams, and pump screens that have been treated during each year since 1994. Beginning in 2008 with one exception, this project only planned, coordinated, and designed projects. Unfortunately, the table did not list the number of projects by category that it successfully facilitated to completion.

A few examples of changes in management were described, with photos, and were helpful for reviewers, but no specific adaptive management approach was mentioned. A key issue seems to be the ability to convince landowners to work with the program to improve water diversions, entrainment, and fish resources. A recent publication in a fisheries journal was completed. This accomplishment is commendable.

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

The proposal identified two emerging issues that are problematic: small hydro development and invasive bivalves. The sponsors note that they are working with the State of Idaho to adequately regulate small hydro and minimize its impacts on fish resources, including ESA listed species, but apparently they have not been fully successful. Given the millions of dollars spent in Idaho on salmon restoration and ESA salmon issues, the sponsor may want to raise this issue with the Council and examine the “Protected Areas” portion of the 2009 Fish and Wildlife Program, Appendix B: Hydroelectric Development Conditions, Section 2, Protected Areas (page 80).

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

A number of deliverables are listed. The nature of the deliverables is highly variable, ranging from “attend meetings” to “hydroseed disturbed ground” to “administrative oversight.” Quantitative deliverables should be estimated when appropriate, for example Deliverable 14: fish passage barrier elimination. How many barriers will be eliminated? This is reportedly a facilitation effort; how many fish screen restoration activities will it facilitate during the next five years?

Most deliverables did not require methods. A brief description of sampling for fish presence/absence was provided prior to project implementation. There was no referral to MonitoringMethods.org. The proposal should identify what is being done to determine success of the restoration project after completion or refer to the implementation project, assuming it has a monitoring component.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/12/2013 9:20:28 AM.

This was a very nicely prepared proposal that included an excellent overview of project history and results to date. Very clear and detailed responses were provided to reviewers' questions. Responses were requested on two items. First, the ISRP asked where the agency currently stands in the process of completing the needed fish screens. The response indicated that 75% of all the known main stem river corridor diversions, including those on the Lemhi River, Little Salmon River, Pahsimeroi River, East Fork Salmon River, North Fork Salmon River, and main stem Salmon River, have had fish screens installed. At present there is one Salmon River diversion with an antiquated fish screen in need of replacement. There is one diversion on the Lemhi River that also is in need of a better fish screen. The North Fork Salmon River has two unscreened diversions. The East Fork Salmon River has three diversions in need of NOAA Criteria screens. One is currently under contract, and the other two are in design phase.

In addition, "there are many years of future work to screen tributaries that are in occupied anadromous habitat. These diversions number several hundred in occupied anadromous waters of the upper Salmon River Basin. Unlike the main stem river diversions which generally do not involve dewatered reaches and water-savings projects, almost all tributaries have potential water-savings projects due to seasonally dewatered reaches and unscreened diversions. This makes fish screening that much more complicated in tributaries as there are generally multiple water conservation projects that are needed to complement a fish screen project in order to make a fish screen effort effective. These primarily include improving fish passage with fish passable diversions and fish screens, and increasing instream flow by water-savings projects and installation or improvement of water control structures."

The second issue was whether water saved due to these projects was being returned to the streams and remaining in the stream channel. The response indicated, "The purpose for installing sprinkler systems and installing pipelines is to keep water instream. These systems are only installed if there can be some assurances the water will remain instream. The Idaho Screen Program works on a tributary wide approach in order to provide the best possible results. Unless the saved water can be shepparded (sic) through the tributary and allow fish passage in lower stream flow conditions, then the project is not considered." While in general this is a beneficial approach for fish, the statement "if there can be some assurances the water will remain instream" is not as concrete as it might be. Whether such projects include any legal provision for instream flow was unclear. Reviewers encourage the sponsors to continue to strengthen this emphasis to the greatest extent possible.

Reviewers appreciate the detail provided in the response regarding how the risk of passage blockage and diversion entrainment varies over an irrigation season by fish species and life stage. Certainly the number of smolting fish diverted and killed in these projects represents an important loss that can only be compensated via factors outside-the-basin, perhaps an unlikely scenario. Because the loss of smolting fish would be the most important loss in freshwater apart from the death of an adult fish, the sponsors might (if not already done) assign higher priority to screening needs at sites where smolting fish predominate than for sites typically entraining younger fish. It would be helpful in the future to see more details regarding this issue and its relative importance at various sites.