The significance of O&M for fish screens is undeniable, and this project appears to continue to be effective at keeping the screens under its purview operational. However, the proposal fell short in multiple aspects related to a) making a compelling case that the project creates important benefits for fish, b) demonstrating that it has vision and strategy for maintaining the project goal going forward, and c) creating a clear plan for what will be conducted under the next project phase.

The ISRP recommends the following steps to enhance the clarity and function of the project. These issues should be addressed in the next annual report and future work plans, and progress tracked by Council and BPA staff. SMART objectives. The proposal identifies its overarching goal of operating and maintaining fishways and screens that are owned (or funded) by BPA. The proposal also identifies some project “objectives,” but they are not measurable objectives and really are just a list of tasks that the project undertakes. The proponents should provide a set of specific

1. SMART objectives (see proposal instructions)that include targets (e.g., number of inspections per year) and standards for assessment of success. Some activities, such as site visits and inspections, could reasonably be combined into a single objective with multiple actions.
2. Project evaluation. Expectations for monitoring and evaluation with an O&M project are not as high as for other types of projects (e.g., habitat restoration or supplementation), but some description of how project managers evaluate the project should be provided. The ISRP recognizes that the project does not conduct monitoring, but the proposal did not provide any indication of a strategy for evaluating the effectiveness of the project. The only examples provided in the proposal were the transition away from woven mesh screens to perforated plates when the science and practice shifted in that direction, and the participation in the Fish Screening Oversight Committee’s quarterly calls and biennial workshops. While both are strengths of the project, a documented strategy for evaluating the project’s successes and needs could help the project adapt. For example, the inspection logs seem to be a missed opportunity for documenting details about the project. Which sites and infrastructure types require the most attention? Which ones are likely to have the greatest need for modification as streamflows change? Etc.
3. Climate change and prioritization. Along these lines, the proposal identifies the need for some sites to be modified in response to climate change. How will those changes be identified, prioritized, planned, and funded? What types of modifications would be necessary? Are the proponents relying upon another one-time injection of funds from BPA, similar to the one they received in 2020 for deferred maintenance? More broadly, given the confounding factors identified by the proponents, the project is likely to be decreasingly effective at meeting its goal without some strategy in place for looking to the future and adapting to changes as they come. How are the proponents strategically planning for and adjusting the project going forward?
4. List of annual work accomplishments. In a past ISRP review, a request was made for a list of work that has been accomplished for screens and fishways by year. The proponents did not deliver this, leaving the ISRP with questions regarding what work remains, how things get prioritized, and what benefit the screening project is providing to which species. In addition, the ISRP notes that the proposal contained many typos that made it difficult to read and left the ISRP wondering if important details were accidentally omitted.

See qualifications.

The portion of the proposal to update Gleed and Nelson screens is not justified biologically, based on the information provided. That is not to say the screen improvements are not biologically justified, but more information would be needed. The sponsors need to show information about the number of fish that are impacted by screens needing work. For instance, if the sponsors are targeting a screen for re-constructing or re-furbishing, they should monitor the existing screen to demonstrate biological data (primarily fish) associated with problems at the screen location.

Responses to the following issues are requested:

1) A more critical appraisal of the need for screen location and function from a fish perspective is needed.

2) Provide some basic quantitative biological information to justify the effectiveness of the screens.

3) Provide an approximate estimate of how many smolts might encounter the Gleed screen given that the primary flow and velocity are in the main channel.

4) How many screens must be replaced with appropriate 3/32” mesh screens?

5) Is funding for screen changes necessary if Nelson Dam modifications are not made?

There seems to be a history of not refurbishing several of these fish screens, and the sponsors indicated that maintenance is reaching the critical stage. Replacement costs exceed costs of regular refurbishment, and there is expertise available to get the refurbishment work done. A more critical appraisal of the need for screen location and function from a fish perspective, not an engineering perspective, is needed and requested. The appraisal should include a justification of the need for a screen in a particular location and a discussion of the biological benefits potentially associated with the refurbishment, as elaborated in the comments below.

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

This proposal provides preventive routine, emergency, and long term/overhaul maintenance and operational adjustments on Phase II fish screening facilities owned by BPA. The objectives of this project are to assure optimal facility performance thereby ensuring protection for all fish species. Regional significance and technical background are adequately described. The proposal provides an adequate description of the significance of the project O&M for fish screens to regional programs, including the BiOp and subbasin plans.

It appears that two, and possibly three, issues are brought up in the introductory material: 1) funding for Gleed Phase II facility to deal with debris, 2) the Nelson dam facilities consolidation, and 3) additional facilities identified as needing screens in 1990 but never installed and not mentioned again in the proposal. Gleed and Nelson are listed below as deliverables.

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

This project does not have a monitoring and evaluation component, although Objective 3 does mention the contribution of this effort to overall biological criteria and evaluation of fish screens as part of the fish screen oversight committee. The ISRP previously requested information showing that the screens were effective. However, the proposal provides no quantitative information on screen effectiveness or salvage rates, which the proposal states are documented for example by the numbers of fish recovered as the channels are dewatered. The proposal refers to PNNL studies of fish screens showing their effectiveness but provided no results. The sponsors should provide some basic biological effectiveness information from recent investigations as a means to further justify their proposal.

Adaptive management was mentioned only to the extent that the “sponsors address issues when identified.” No examples of significant changes in O&M procedures were described in the proposal. It was not clear why the sponsor has not already responded to new fish screen mesh size criteria (3/32”). It is not clear if funding for this change is needed. Is there a need to screen additional water diversions in the basin?

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

The proposal did not identify emerging limiting factors such as climate change, and how this might affect some deliverables. For instance a discussion of changes in river channel in response to flood events and how this impacts screen operations would be a useful approach to the climate change.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The ISRP has questions about several deliverables identified below.

Deliverable 2: How many smolts might encounter the Gleed screen given that the primary flow and velocity, and presumably nearly all smolts, are in the main channel about 30 meters away from the screen.

Deliverable 3 is to refurbish screens. How many screens must be replaced with appropriate mesh screens?

Deliverable 4: The proposal mentions that screen changes at Nelson Dam cannot be made until the proposed dam modifications are made. Is funding needed if changes to the dam are not made within this project period? To what extent might changes at Nelson Dam involving consolidation benefit salmonids?

Deliverable 5 includes an element of screen evaluation as part of the oversight committee. The sponsor should provide some information showing that the screens are effective. For instance, how many fish are salvaged?

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 2:37:32 PM.

This ongoing project is necessary to protect the investment already made in screens to benefit fish. There is clearly an identified need to operate fish screens to avoid mortality from diversions. The review of the problem and references gives adequate technical background but could be improved by giving reviewers some details on many fish and what species are being saved from entrainment by the screening program. The information collected by the program, as it is currently set up, is not biological. This information is clearly essential to monitor the success/failure of the program.

It is not clear that the level of activity proposed in this project is optimal or if more or less activity would provide enhanced protection to all species and life stages of fish. The proposal would be strengthened if justification were provided for the level of effort identified.

In a previous review the ISRP requested a table of work to date by location. This is not included in this year's proposal or narrative. The proposal lists new screens by year but the proponents should provide such a table in the future, as it would be a valuable check on effort expended and required.