View and print project details including project summary, purpose, associations to Biological Opinions, and area. To learn more about any of the project properties, hold your mouse cursor over the field label.
Province | Subbasin | % |
---|---|---|
Columbia Plateau | John Day | 100.00% |
|
Description: Page: 1 Cover a: Izee Falls near Dayville, Oregon Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 492 x 369 Description: Page: 1 Cover b: From Pogue Point, Headwaters of the MF John Day River, Oregon Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 502 x 376 Description: Page: 21 Photo 1: SCREEN SITE # 165 PRE-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 354 x 266 Description: Page: 21 Photo 2: SCREEN SITE #165 POST-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 360 x 271 Description: Page: 21 Photo 3: SCREEN SITE #464 PRE-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 348 x 261 Description: Page: 21 Photo 4: SCREEN SITE #464 POST-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 354 x 266 Description: Page: 22 Photo 5: SCREEN SITE #653 PRE-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 355 x 266 Description: Page: 22 Photo 6: SCREEN SITE #653 POST-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 357 x 268 Description: Page: 22 Photo 7: SCREEN SITE #652 PRE-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 355 x 267 Description: Page: 22 Photo 8: SCREEN SITE #652 POST-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 358 x 269 Description: Page: 23 Photo 9: SCREEN SITE #553 PRE-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 369 x 277 Description: Page: 23 Photo 10: SCREEN SITE #553 POST-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 369 x 277 Description: Page: 23 Photo 11: SCREEN SITE #554 PRE-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 363 x 272 Description: Page: 23 Photo 12: SCREEN SITE #554 POST-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 365 x 273 Description: Page: 24 Photo 13: SCREEN SITE #62 PRE-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 364 x 271 Description: Page: 24 Photo 14: SCREEN SITE #62 POST-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 366 x 274 Description: Page: 24 Photo 15: SCREEN SITE #63 PRE-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 368 x 274 Description: Page: 24 Photo 16: SCREEN SITE #63 POST-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 366 x 275 Description: Page: 25 Photo 17: SCREEN SITE #516 PRE-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 339 x 254 Description: Page: 25 Photo 18: SCREEN SITE #516 POST-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 335 x 251 Description: Page: 25 Photo 19: SCREEN SITE #9 PRE-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 353 x 265 Description: Page: 25 Photo 20: SCREEN SITE #9 POST-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 350 x 262 Description: Page: 26 Photo 21: SCREEN SITE #285 PRE-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 350 x 262 Description: Page: 26 Photo 22: SCREEN SITE #285 POST-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 351 x 263 Description: Page: 26 Photo 23: SCREEN SITE #496 PRE-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 350 x 263 Description: Page: 26 Photo 24: SCREEN SITE #496 POST-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 252 x 337 Description: Page: 27 Photo 25: SCREEN SITE #575 PRE-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 362 x 272 Description: Page: 27 Photo 26: SCREEN SITE #575 POST-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 357 x 269 Description: Page: 27 Photo 27: SCREEN SITE #167 PRE-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 368 x 276 Description: Page: 27 Photo 28: SCREEN SITE #167 POST-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 365 x 274 Description: Page: 28 Photo 29: SCREEN SITE #310 PRE-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 346 x 259 Description: Page: 28 Photo 30: SCREEN SITE #310 POST-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 344 x 257 Description: Page: 28 Photo 31: SCREEN SITE #154 POST-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 424 x 318 Description: Page: 29 Photo 32: SCREEN SITE #787 PRE-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 365 x 273 Description: Page: 29 Photo 33: SCREEN SITE #787 POST-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 371 x 277 Description: Page: 29 Photo 34: SCREEN SITE #501 POST-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 414 x 310 Description: Page: 30 Photo 35: SCREEN SITE #1160 PRE-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 354 x 267 Description: Page: 30 Photo 36: SCREEN SITE #1160 POST-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 377 x 269 Description: Page: 30 Photo 37: SCREEN SITE #1161 PRE-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 354 x 288 Description: Page: 30 Photo 38: SCREEN SITE #1161 POST-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 180 x 110 Description: Page: 31 Photo 39: SCREEN SITE #904 PRE-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 355 x 266 Description: Page: 31 Photo 40: SCREEN SITE #904 POST-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 358 x 269 Description: Page: 31 Photo 41: SCREEN SITE #905 PRE-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 349 x 262 Description: Page: 31 Photo 42: SCREEN SITE #905 POST-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 352 x 264 Description: Page: 32 Photo 43: SCREEN SITE #1049 PRE-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 342 x 257 Description: Page: 32 Photo 44: SCREEN SITE #1049 POST-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 347 x 260 Description: Page: 32 Photo 45: SCREEN SITE #1051 PRE-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 363 x 273 Description: Page: 32 Photo 46: SCREEN SITE #1051 POST-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 493 x 713 Description: Page: 33 Photo 47: SCREEN SITE #870 PRE-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 369 x 277 Description: Page: 33 Photo 48: SCREEN SITE #870 POST-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 366 x 275 Description: Page: 33 Photo 49: SCREEN SITE #43 PRE-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 362 x 270 Description: Page: 33 Photo 50: SCREEN SITE #43 POST-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 360 x 270 Description: Page: 34 Photo 51: SCREEN SITE #909 PRE-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 300 x 400 Description: Page: 34 Photo 52: SCREEN SITE #909 POST-CONSTRUCTION Project: 1993-066-00 Document: P125996 Dimensions: 423 x 317 |
To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"
To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page
Acct FY | Acct Type | Amount | Fund | Budget Decision | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
FY2021 | Expense | $2,491,019 | From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) | FY21 SOY | 06/09/2020 |
FY2021 | Expense | $34,200 | From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) | ODFW FY21 Portfolio Transfers | 08/07/2020 |
FY2021 | Expense | $97,000 | From: Cost Savings | FY21 Asset Management (1993-066-00) | 08/14/2020 |
FY2021 | Expense | $97,000 | To: Cost Savings | Fund correction (9/15/2020) | 09/15/2020 |
FY2021 | Expense | $97,000 | From: Asset Management | Fund correction (9/15/2020) | 09/15/2020 |
FY2021 | Expense | $38,000 | From: Cost Savings | Project Transfers from FY21 Cost Savings fund (7/28/2021) | 07/28/2021 |
FY2022 | Expense | $40,000 | From: Asset Management | FY22 Asset Management Decisions | 05/11/2021 |
FY2022 | Expense | $2,525,219 | From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) | SOY Transfers Over $1M | 06/04/2021 |
FY2022 | Expense | $177,530 | From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) | FY22 ODFW Adjustments -- 12/9/2021 | 12/09/2021 |
Number | Contractor Name | Title | Status | Total Contracted Amount | Dates |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
5122
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 1996 NE OREGON PUMPING SCREENING | Closed | $2,449,006 | 1/1/2001 - 12/31/2004 |
21151
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | PI 1993-066-00 OREGON FISH SCREENING | History | $866,299 | 1/24/2005 - 12/31/2005 |
25507
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 199306600 CAP OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECT | Closed | $919,032 | 1/1/2006 - 12/31/2006 |
32034
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 CAP OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECT | Closed | $1,006,400 | 1/1/2007 - 12/31/2007 |
36859
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 CAP OREGON FISH SCREENS | Closed | $1,054,430 | 1/1/2008 - 12/31/2008 |
41267
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 CAP OREGON FISH SCREENS | Closed | $2,025,518 | 1/1/2009 - 12/31/2010 |
51700
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 CAP OREGON FISH SCREENS | Closed | $1,054,231 | 1/1/2011 - 2/29/2012 |
56395
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 CAP OREGON FISH SCREENS | Closed | $1,063,719 | 1/1/2012 - 12/31/2012 |
60212
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 CAP OREGON FISH SCREENS | Closed | $1,063,532 | 1/1/2013 - 12/31/2013 |
64730
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 CAP OREGON FISH SCREENS | Closed | $1,036,456 | 1/1/2014 - 12/31/2014 |
67802
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 CAP OREGON FISH SCREENS | Closed | $1,063,719 | 1/1/2015 - 12/31/2015 |
Number | Contractor Name | Title | Status | Total Contracted Amount | Dates |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
25507
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 199306600 CAP OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECT | Closed | $919,032 | 1/1/2006 - 12/31/2006 |
31835
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 199306600 EXP OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECTS | Closed | $10,396 | 1/1/2007 - 12/31/2007 |
36773
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 EXP OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECTS | Closed | $9,854 | 1/1/2008 - 12/31/2008 |
40894
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 EXP OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECTS | Closed | $19,733 | 1/1/2009 - 12/31/2010 |
39727 REL 5
![]() |
Applied Archaeological Research | 2009 OR DEPT F&W FISH SCREENS CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY | Closed | $17,630 | 2/5/2009 - 8/10/2009 |
39727 REL 26
![]() |
Applied Archaeological Research | ODFW 2010 FISH SCREENS CR SURVEYS | Closed | $21,924 | 1/6/2010 - 9/1/2010 |
40052 REL 6
![]() |
ATAW Consulting LLC | CR SURVEYS OF UMATILLA CNTY 2011 ODFW FISH SCREENS | Closed | $4,900 | 9/29/2010 - 7/1/2011 |
39807 REL 13
![]() |
Historical Research Associates, Inc. | CR SURVEYS FY11 ODFW FISH SCREENS | Closed | $24,023 | 9/30/2010 - 7/1/2011 |
51624
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 EXP OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECTS | Closed | $10,506 | 1/1/2011 - 12/31/2011 |
39727 REL 60
![]() |
Applied Archaeological Research | CR SURVEYS FOR 2012 ODFW FISH SCREENS | Closed | $26,161 | 12/2/2011 - 5/31/2012 |
59142
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 EXP OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECTS | Closed | $33,785 | 10/15/2012 - 12/31/2013 |
64087
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 EXP OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECTS | Closed | $48,918 | 1/1/2014 - 2/28/2015 |
66505
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 EXP OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECTS | Closed | $819,007 | 9/15/2014 - 10/31/2015 |
67815
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 EXP OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECTS | Closed | $11,909 | 1/1/2015 - 12/31/2015 |
70727
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 EXP O&M OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECTS | Closed | $1,234,918 | 11/1/2015 - 10/31/2016 |
71422
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 EXP OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECTS | Closed | $1,058,194 | 1/1/2016 - 12/31/2016 |
74422
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 EXP O&M OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECTS | Closed | $1,240,809 | 11/1/2016 - 10/31/2017 |
75338
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 EXP OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECTS | Closed | $1,118,705 | 1/1/2017 - 12/31/2017 |
74313 REL 16
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 EXP O&M OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECTS | Closed | $1,280,743 | 11/1/2017 - 10/31/2018 |
74313 REL 17
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 EXP OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECTS | Closed | $1,122,268 | 1/1/2018 - 12/31/2018 |
74313 REL 42
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 EXP O&M OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECTS | Closed | $1,447,611 | 11/1/2018 - 12/31/2019 |
74313 REL 44
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 EXP OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECTS | Closed | $1,122,320 | 1/1/2019 - 12/31/2019 |
74313 REL 67
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 EXP O&M OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECTS | Closed | $1,369,525 | 1/1/2020 - 12/31/2020 |
74313 REL 68
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 EXP OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECTS | Issued | $1,191,261 | 1/1/2020 - 12/31/2020 |
74313 REL 89
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 EXP O&M OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECT | Issued | $1,388,197 | 1/1/2021 - 12/31/2021 |
74313 REL 90
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 EXP OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECT | Closed | $1,272,022 | 1/1/2021 - 12/31/2021 |
74313 REL 107
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 EXP OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECTS - O&M | Issued | $1,425,822 | 1/1/2022 - 12/31/2022 |
74313 REL 108
![]() |
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 1993-066-00 EXP OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECTS - IMPLEMENTATION | Issued | $1,316,927 | 1/1/2022 - 12/31/2022 |
Annual Progress Reports | |
---|---|
Expected (since FY2004): | 30 |
Completed: | 22 |
On time: | 22 |
Status Reports | |
---|---|
Completed: | 135 |
On time: | 90 |
Avg Days Late: | 3 |
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 |
5122 | 21151, 25507, 32034, 31835, 36773, 36859, 41267, 40894, 51624, 51700, 56395, 59142, 60212, 64730, 64087, 67802, 67815, 71422, 75338, 74313 REL 17, 74313 REL 44, 74313 REL 68, 74313 REL 90, 74313 REL 108 | 1993-066-00 1996 NE OREGON PUMPING SCREENING | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 01/2001 | 01/2001 | Issued | 101 | 546 | 43 | 0 | 320 | 909 | 64.80% | 156 |
66505 | 70727, 74422, 74313 REL 16, 74313 REL 42, 74313 REL 67, 74313 REL 89, 74313 REL 107 | 1993-066-00 EXP OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECTS | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife | 09/2014 | 09/2014 | Issued | 34 | 135 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 159 | 100.00% | 0 |
Project Totals | 135 | 681 | 67 | 0 | 320 | 1068 | 70.04% | 156 |
Assessment Number: | 1993-066-00-NPCC-20131125 |
---|---|
Project: | 1993-066-00 - Oregon Fish Screens Project |
Review: | 2013 Geographic Category Review |
Proposal: | GEOREV-1993-066-00 |
Proposal State: | Pending BPA Response |
Approved Date: | 11/5/2013 |
Recommendation: | Implement with Conditions |
Comments: | Implement with conditions through FY 2018: Sponsor should consider addressing ISRP suggestions in future reviews. See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation C for long term maintenance. Also see recommendation for project # 2007-397-00. |
Conditions: | |
Council Condition #1 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #1—Sponsor should consider addressing ISRP suggestions in future reviews. | |
Council Condition #2 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #2—Sponsor should consider addressing ISRP suggestions in future reviews. | |
Council Condition #3 Programmatic Issue: C. Provide Long-term Maintenance of Fish Screens—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation C for long term maintenance. | |
Council Condition #4 Also see recommendation for project # 2007-397-00. |
Assessment Number: | 1993-066-00-ISRP-20130610 |
---|---|
Project: | 1993-066-00 - Oregon Fish Screens Project |
Review: | 2013 Geographic Category Review |
Proposal Number: | GEOREV-1993-066-00 |
Completed Date: | 6/11/2013 |
Final Round ISRP Date: | 6/10/2013 |
Final Round ISRP Rating: | Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified) |
Final Round ISRP Comment: | |
This is a solid proposal with a long track record. The questions raised may seem insignificant on the surface, but concerns about hatchery straying, effectiveness monitoring, improving passage of non-natives, any active removal of beaver dams, and the lack of any adaptive management leave some lingering concerns. 1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The Oregon Fish Screen and Passage Project is of significance to regional programs by providing immediate and long-term protection for anadromous and resident fish species in the Deschutes, John Day, Umatilla, and Walla Walla River basins by installation of NOAA Criteria fish screens, irrigation diversions, pump intakes, and barrier removal as well as passage structures including ladders, siphons, culverts at road crossings, and habitat improvements associated with passage plus water efficiency devices. The project and personnel have many years of experience and thereby have developed the technical expertise to carry out the passage installations and modifications. The Objectives are straightforward and appropriate. Given the very large number of sites needing treatment a question arises as to what efforts are being used to prioritize work. How many individual projects remain? There are currently 300 diversion sites identified as important. Is there a target date to complete them? Also as projects are added so is maintenance, but the O&M budget is not increasing. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results) The accomplishments and results to date are as expected, and are assisting the recovery of native fishes. While there is a good discussion of lessons learned and subsequent program improvement, adaptive management is not being practiced nor is Structured Decision Making. This needs to be corrected by setting quantitative goals and timelines for improving fish passage for each project activity and by articulating hypotheses that can be tested statistically via appropriate monitoring data. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions The project has a long history of working with landowners, Tribes and agencies – and these relationships appear to be working well. Nevertheless, it is not clear to what extent this program coordinates with others that are working on fish passage restoration, especially correction of culvert passage at road-stream crossings and irrigation diversions. The process for prioritization is described as primarily driven by ODFW with some reference to subbasin plan priorities. Given the wide area covered by the program and the multiple players involved in an array of restoration activities, including passage, it appears that additional coordination is needed. Further, it appears that some of the instream activities proposed for the John Day River are not well coordinated with the Warm Springs Tribe and their proposed activities. Clarification is needed on this point. Specific questions: 1) In the Umatilla Basin, it is proposed to construct pool and riffle habitat using instream modifications. Where opportunities exist, work on public, federal, state, tribal and private lands will be conducted to increase the quantity of pools and gravel dominated riffles, as opposed to cobble. What agreements are in place to conduct this work? Is there any overlap with other proposals or projects? 2) The river systems being considered for fish passage improvements contain many native fishes as well as non-natives. Have analyses been conducted to compare the positive versus detrimental effects of improving passage for non-natives? Further, hatchery strays are a serious consideration, especially on the spawning grounds of native salmonids. Have similar analyses been conducted to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of improved passage? 3) Is there any way to use the screens and diversions to restrict the movements of non-native fishes? 4) What is the project’s policy concerning beaver dams? It is refreshing to see that the project is taking climate change seriously as an emerging limiting factor and planning for it. The reality is that this region is already more than half way through the transition from snow-dominated late season runoff to more winter precipitation as rain. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods The program is grounded in screening and passage yet is reliant on personal observation and word of mouth for the identification of many sites. Unfortunately, there is no assessment of irrigation diversions for the Deschutes River basin and there was no discussion as to when that might occur. Additionally, there is no reference to other assessments such as the Forest Service’s comprehensive assessment of fish passage at road-stream crossings. Project prioritization is accomplished primarily by ODFW personnel using sets of rating criteria. It is not clear if these are only considered or whether they are actually scored for setting priorities. Additionally, there seems to be little if any coordination with restoration activities of other stakeholders which may be an important consideration in establishing a multi-year work plans. The reporting rate is very low in comparison to other projects. This needs to be improved. Otherwise, the deliverables, work elements, metrics, and methods are appropriate. In the budget, overhead is charged at 22%. In addition, there is a line item for rent and utilities (water, sewer, power, telephone, postage, office supplies, propane, garbage service, inspections, build). Should this line item be paid through the overhead rate? Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org The need for improved Effectiveness Monitoring was previously identified by ISRP. According to the proposal this was not possible at most sites, for a variety of reasons. As a result, three by-pass traps were installed in the John Day watershed and three additional sites were to be established in 2013. There is no discussion of how these sites were selected or any findings, other than the number and species of fish trapped. As well, no location is given for the new sites. It was also mentioned that there are continuing difficulties in funding of effectiveness monitoring. Effectiveness monitoring needs additional attention. Further, there was no mention of ISEMP or AEM or any future program involvement with monitoring.
|
|
Qualification #1 - Qualification #1
The program has identified a significant number of diversions as high priority projects that will take decades to address. The need is very clear on these projects - project completion could significantly improve fish survivorship. The ISRP encourages the program to expedite the completion of work on the high priority screening projects. In order to accomplish this, we are encouraging the Council and BPA to increase funding in order to improve the implementation rate. If the Council and BPA agree, the sponsor will need to produce an expanded proposal to meet these needs.
|
|
Qualification #2 - Qualification #2
A specific suggestion: explore research opportunities for using screen outfalls for sampling fish parameters. The irrigation diversions possibly could be used for basic fish M&E. Note that PIT tag release designs will not work for this because fish are captured, tagged, and released above the sites.
|
|
First Round ISRP Date: | 6/10/2013 |
First Round ISRP Rating: | Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified) |
First Round ISRP Comment: | |
This is a solid proposal with a long track record. The questions raised may seem insignificant on the surface, but concerns about hatchery straying, effectiveness monitoring, improving passage of non-natives, any active removal of beaver dams, and the lack of any adaptive management leave some lingering concerns. 1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The Oregon Fish Screen and Passage Project is of significance to regional programs by providing immediate and long-term protection for anadromous and resident fish species in the Deschutes, John Day, Umatilla, and Walla Walla River basins by installation of NOAA Criteria fish screens, irrigation diversions, pump intakes, and barrier removal as well as passage structures including ladders, siphons, culverts at road crossings, and habitat improvements associated with passage plus water efficiency devices. The project and personnel have many years of experience and thereby have developed the technical expertise to carry out the passage installations and modifications. The Objectives are straightforward and appropriate. Given the very large number of sites needing treatment a question arises as to what efforts are being used to prioritize work. How many individual projects remain? There are currently 300 diversion sites identified as important. Is there a target date to complete them? Also as projects are added so is maintenance, but the O&M budget is not increasing. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results) The accomplishments and results to date are as expected, and are assisting the recovery of native fishes. While there is a good discussion of lessons learned and subsequent program improvement, adaptive management is not being practiced nor is Structured Decision Making. This needs to be corrected by setting quantitative goals and timelines for improving fish passage for each project activity and by articulating hypotheses that can be tested statistically via appropriate monitoring data. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions The project has a long history of working with landowners, Tribes and agencies – and these relationships appear to be working well. Nevertheless, it is not clear to what extent this program coordinates with others that are working on fish passage restoration, especially correction of culvert passage at road-stream crossings and irrigation diversions. The process for prioritization is described as primarily driven by ODFW with some reference to subbasin plan priorities. Given the wide area covered by the program and the multiple players involved in an array of restoration activities, including passage, it appears that additional coordination is needed. Further, it appears that some of the instream activities proposed for the John Day River are not well coordinated with the Warm Springs Tribe and their proposed activities. Clarification is needed on this point. Specific questions: 1) In the Umatilla Basin, it is proposed to construct pool and riffle habitat using instream modifications. Where opportunities exist, work on public, federal, state, tribal and private lands will be conducted to increase the quantity of pools and gravel dominated riffles, as opposed to cobble. What agreements are in place to conduct this work? Is there any overlap with other proposals or projects? 2) The river systems being considered for fish passage improvements contain many native fishes as well as non-natives. Have analyses been conducted to compare the positive versus detrimental effects of improving passage for non-natives? Further, hatchery strays are a serious consideration, especially on the spawning grounds of native salmonids. Have similar analyses been conducted to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of improved passage? 3) Is there any way to use the screens and diversions to restrict the movements of non-native fishes? 4) What is the project’s policy concerning beaver dams? It is refreshing to see that the project is taking climate change seriously as an emerging limiting factor and planning for it. The reality is that this region is already more than half way through the transition from snow-dominated late season runoff to more winter precipitation as rain. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods The program is grounded in screening and passage yet is reliant on personal observation and word of mouth for the identification of many sites. Unfortunately, there is no assessment of irrigation diversions for the Deschutes River basin and there was no discussion as to when that might occur. Additionally, there is no reference to other assessments such as the Forest Service’s comprehensive assessment of fish passage at road-stream crossings. Project prioritization is accomplished primarily by ODFW personnel using sets of rating criteria. It is not clear if these are only considered or whether they are actually scored for setting priorities. Additionally, there seems to be little if any coordination with restoration activities of other stakeholders which may be an important consideration in establishing a multi-year work plans. The reporting rate is very low in comparison to other projects. This needs to be improved. Otherwise, the deliverables, work elements, metrics, and methods are appropriate. In the budget, overhead is charged at 22%. In addition, there is a line item for rent and utilities (water, sewer, power, telephone, postage, office supplies, propane, garbage service, inspections, build). Should this line item be paid through the overhead rate? Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org The need for improved Effectiveness Monitoring was previously identified by ISRP. According to the proposal this was not possible at most sites, for a variety of reasons. As a result, three by-pass traps were installed in the John Day watershed and three additional sites were to be established in 2013. There is no discussion of how these sites were selected or any findings, other than the number and species of fish trapped. As well, no location is given for the new sites. It was also mentioned that there are continuing difficulties in funding of effectiveness monitoring. Effectiveness monitoring needs additional attention. Further, there was no mention of ISEMP or AEM or any future program involvement with monitoring.
|
|
Documentation Links: |
|
Assessment Number: | 1993-066-00-NPCC-20090924 |
---|---|
Project: | 1993-066-00 - Oregon Fish Screens Project |
Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
Approved Date: | 10/23/2006 |
Recommendation: | Fund |
Comments: |
Assessment Number: | 1993-066-00-ISRP-20060831 |
---|---|
Project: | 1993-066-00 - Oregon Fish Screens Project |
Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
Completed Date: | 8/31/2006 |
Final Round ISRP Date: | None |
Final Round ISRP Rating: | Meets Scientific Review Criteria |
Final Round ISRP Comment: | |
This project provides direct, long-term benefits for salmon and other aquatic species. Screening, especially for rare and much reduced species, can be critical to rebuilding populations. It is important that screening technologies be updated and that the best available methods be used to benefit different species and sizes of fish. This drainage is a significant wild fish "control" system in the Columbia Basin. Objectives are straightforward and tasks are identified appropriately. Success in screen projects is highly dependent on the skills of the people implementing them and requirements can be quite site-specific. It is not clear in the proposal exactly how success will be measured, before and after rates of entrainment? Monitoring for effectiveness should be essential.
Is this cost effective in terms of fringe and overhead? These costs seem high. |
|
Documentation Links: |
|
Assessment Number: | 1993-066-00-INLIEU-20090521 |
---|---|
Project Number: | 1993-066-00 |
Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
Completed Date: | 10/6/2006 |
In Lieu Rating: | Problems May Exist |
Cost Share Rating: | 3 - Does not appear reasonable |
Comment: | Fish screening on private irrigation facilities; irrigators authorized/required to provide screening; are BPA funds being used to provide screens for entities that are required/have been ordered to replace/upgrade their screens? Need confirmation that cost share sufficient. |
Assessment Number: | 1993-066-00-CAPITAL-20090618 |
---|---|
Project Number: | 1993-066-00 |
Review: | FY07-09 Solicitation Review |
Completed Date: | 9/14/2007 |
Capital Rating: | Qualifies for Capital Funding |
Capital Asset Category: | Fish Passage Improvement |
Comment: | 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). |
Name | Role | Organization |
---|---|---|
Michael Jensen | Project Lead | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife |
Mark Kirsch | Interested Party | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife |
John Skidmore | Supervisor | Bonneville Power Administration |
Catherine Clark | Env. Compliance Lead | Bonneville Power Administration |
Jesse Wilson | Interested Party | Bonneville Power Administration |
Alan Ritchey | Supervisor | Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife |
Joshua Ashline | Project Manager | Bonneville Power Administration |