Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1994-015-00 - Idaho Fish Screening Improvement Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1994-015-00 - Idaho Fish Screening Improvement
Project Number:
1994-015-00
Title:
Idaho Fish Screening Improvement
Summary:
Provide management and operational support for a capital construction program dedicated to the protection of anadromous fish from loss in water diversions, improve fish passage at diversions for juvenile and adult anadromous fish, and improve stream flow conditions where possible.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
1994
Ending FY:
2017
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Mountain Snake Salmon 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
All Anadromous Fish
All Anadromous Salmonids
Bass, Smallmouth
Chinook - All Populations
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU (threatened)
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - All Anadromous Populations
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Freshwater Mussels
Lamprey, Pacific
Sockeye - All Populations
Sockeye - Snake River ESU (endangered)
Steelhead - All Populations
Steelhead - Snake River DPS (threatened)
Sturgeon, White - All Populations except Kootenai R. DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull (threatened)
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 80.0%   Resident: 20.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

No photos have been uploaded yet for this project.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2016 (Previous) $434,633 $434,633 $434,633 $434,633 $397,085

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $434,633 $434,633 $434,633 $397,085
FY2017 (Current) $434,633 $434,633 $434,633 $434,633 $153,480

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $434,633 $434,633 $434,633 $153,480
FY2018 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $0 $0 $0 $0
Capital SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2016 (Previous) $0 $0 $0 $0

FY2017 (Current) $0 $0 $0 $0

FY2018 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Mar-2017

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2016 - FY2018)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2016 Expense $434,633 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY16 Initial Planning Budgets - Expense 05/22/2015
FY2017 Expense $434,633 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY17 SOY Budgets 06/02/2016

Pending Budget Decision?  No


No Project Cost Share

FY2016 0 %
FY2015 0 %
FY2014 0 %
FY2013 0 %
FY2012 76 %
FY2011 76 %
FY2010 0 %
FY2009 77 %
FY2008 80 %
FY2007 90 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Capital Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
5666 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 UPPER SALMON RIVER ANADROMOUS FISH PASSAGE History $2,052,947 7/1/2001 - 6/30/2004
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
5677 SOW DHI, Inc. 1994-015-00 UPPER SALMON RIVER SUB-BASIN HABITAT RESTORATION History $489,730 7/27/2001 - 4/16/2002
23364 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) PI 1994-015-00 PL IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT History $694,285 7/1/2005 - 6/30/2006
27873 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT History $776,478 7/1/2006 - 9/30/2007
33528 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 EXP ID FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT History $258,003 7/1/2007 - 6/30/2008
35392 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT History $49,389 9/1/2007 - 6/30/2008
38456 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT-IDFG History $261,937 7/1/2008 - 6/30/2009
38390 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENTS-IDFG History $92,773 7/1/2008 - 6/30/2009
43653 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT History $296,538 7/1/2009 - 6/30/2010
43275 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENTS-FTE History $99,902 7/1/2009 - 6/30/2010
73976 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT Issued $434,633 7/1/2016 - 6/30/2017



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):23
Completed:9
On time:9
Status Reports
Completed:79
On time:31
Avg Days Late:20

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
5666 18384, 23364, 27873, 33528, 38456, 43653, 47867, 53579, 57842, 62006, 66265, 70536, 73976 1994-015-00 UPPER SALMON RIVER ANADROMOUS FISH PASSAGE Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 07/2001 07/2001 Pending 46 104 19 0 29 152 80.92% 0
35392 38390, 43275, 48306, 53580, 57792, 61879, 65780 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 09/2007 09/2007 Closed 33 41 0 0 8 49 83.67% 0
Project Totals 79 145 19 0 37 201 81.59% 0


Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1994-015-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 1994-015-00 - Idaho Fish Screening Improvement
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-1994-015-00
Completed Date: 6/12/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:

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.

First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
First Round ISRP Comment:

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.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1994-015-00-NPCC-20131125
Project: 1994-015-00 - Idaho Fish Screening Improvement
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-1994-015-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement through FY 2018. See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation C for long term maintenance
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: C. Provide Long-term Maintenance of Fish Screens—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation C for long term maintenance.
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1994-015-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1994-015-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: Fish screening, irrigation consolidation, other activities; multiple other entities may be authorized/required; need cost share or other remedy.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1994-015-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1994-015-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1994-015-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1994-015-00 - Idaho Fish Screening Improvement
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 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.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1994-015-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1994-015-00 - Idaho Fish Screening Improvement
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Capital Project or at least elements of the project can be capitalized. Final determination will most likely not occur until contracting (per BPA 8/11/06).

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Paul Krueger (Inactive) Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Michelle Guay Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Tom Curet Supervisor Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
Patrick Murphy Project Lead Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
Cecilia Brown Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Paul Kline Interested Party Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)