Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1993-066-00 - Oregon Fish Screens Project Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1993-066-00 - Oregon Fish Screens Project
Project Number:
1993-066-00
Title:
Oregon Fish Screens Project
Summary:
This Oregon fish screen project is for the replacement of fish screens and passage barriers in anadromous basins of Northeast Oregon.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
1993
Ending FY:
2021
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Plateau John Day 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Bass, Smallmouth
Carp, Common
Catfish
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - Resident Populations
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Lamprey, Pacific
Lamprey, River
Lamprey, Western Brook
Pikeminnow, Northern
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS
Steelhead - Snake River DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

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


Summary of Budgets

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

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2019 - FY2021)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2019 Expense $2,363,129 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY19 Q1 Flat 07/30/2018
FY2019 Expense $206,802 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) June 25th Transfers 06/25/2019
FY2020 Expense $2,363,129 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY20 SOY 06/05/2019
FY2020 Expense $35,000 From: Cost Savings Increase FY20 budget for screen maintenance 09/06/2019
FY2020 Expense $35,000 From: Cost Savings Asset Management FY20 transfers (11/8/2019) 11/08/2019
FY2020 Expense $127,890 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) Dec 9th Transfers 12/10/2019
FY2020 Expense $35,000 To: Cost Savings Correct Cost Savings Transfer (3/12/2020) 03/12/2020
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

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2020   DRAFT
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
2019 $711,770 22%
2018 $688,126 22%
2017 $701,873 23%
2016 $648,789 22%
2015 $919,909 35%
2014 $1,389,272 42%
2013 $1,389,272 55%
2012 $1,337,245 54%
2011 $993,512 47%
2010
2009 $857,000 46%
2008 $1,103,944 51%
2007 $923,515 48%

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Capital Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
21151 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife PI 1993-066-00 OREGON FISH SCREENING History $866,299 1/24/2005 - 12/31/2005
CR-172663 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife DO NOT DELETE:PLACEHOLDER - 1993-066-00 CAP OREGON FISH SCREENS Pending $0 12/1/2018 - 11/1/2020
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
299 REL 1 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-066-00, 1996 NE OREGON PUMP SCREENING Terminated $505,237 2/1/2000 - 12/31/2000
74313 REL 67 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-066-00 EXP O&M OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECTS Issued $1,369,758 1/1/2020 - 12/31/2020
74313 REL 68 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-066-00 EXP OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECTS Issued $1,191,261 1/1/2020 - 12/31/2020
CR-343608 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-066-00 EXP O&M OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECT Pending $1,388,197 1/1/2021 - 12/31/2021
CR-343609 SOW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993-066-00 EXP OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECT Pending $1,234,022 1/1/2021 - 12/31/2021



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):27
Completed:19
On time:19
Status Reports
Completed:121
On time:80
Avg Days Late:2

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, 31835, 32034, 36773, 36859, 41267, 40894, 51700, 51624, 56395, 59142, 60212, 64730, 64087, 67802, 67815, 71422, 75338, 74313 REL 17, 74313 REL 44, 74313 REL 68 1993-066-00 1996 NE OREGON PUMPING SCREENING Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 01/2001 01/2001 Pending 94 512 34 0 311 857 63.71% 109
66505 70727, 74422, 74313 REL 16, 74313 REL 42, 74313 REL 67 1993-066-00 EXP OREGON FISH SCREENS PROJECTS Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 09/2014 09/2014 Pending 27 80 26 0 0 106 100.00% 0
Project Totals 121 592 60 0 311 963 67.71% 109


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: 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.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

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.


===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

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.


===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 1:08:44 PM.
Documentation Links:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

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:

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

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:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

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.

Capital Assessment

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).

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Kelly Stokes (Inactive) Interested Party Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Sandra Sovay (Inactive) Administrative Contact Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Michael Jensen Project Lead Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Enrique Rodriguez (Inactive) Interested Party Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Mark Kirsch Supervisor Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
John Skidmore Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Eric Leitzinger Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Catherine Clark Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration