Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program 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:
This project provides management and operational support for a capital construction program dedicated to the protection of anadromous fish from water diversions, improvement of juvenile and adult fish passage at diversions, and improvement of stream flow conditions.
Background: Since the 1800's, anadromous fish runs in the Columbia River have declined drastically. Historically, IDFG estimates that the Salmon River basin produced 39% of the spring Chinook salmon and 45% of the summer Chinook salmon in the Columbia River Basin (Idaho Department of Fish & Game, 1985). Steelhead estimates for the Salmon River basin are not available but production was substantial. Due to the low return of spring Chinook salmon to Idaho in 1974, all but treaty harvest was curtailed. Since then, harvest has been limited to a tribal fishery and occasional harvest of surplus hatchery stocks.

Irrigation diversions date back to the 1860's in the Salmon River basin of the Snake River drainage and have impacted anadromous fish in a number of ways. These impacts included loss of habitat, entrainment of smolts on their migration to the ocean, and returning adults have been blocked by irrigation diversion wing dams. Riparian corridors have been degraded by various management actions.

In 1938 the U.S. Congress passed the Mitchell Act in an attempt to partially mitigate for losses resulting from hydroelectric projects, logging, mining, and agricultural developments. The Act provided a mechanism for conserving fishery resources of the Columbia River basin and created the Columbia River Fisheries Development Program (CRFDP). The CRFDP program was extended to include the upper basin (above McNary) in 1956. Between 1958 and 1966, IDFG constructed more than 200 fish screens on the main stem Salmon River and tributaries. Today about 265 screens are in operation in Idaho.

Funding was first provided to the IDFG by BPA in 1994 for anadromous fisheries projects falling outside the scope of the Mitchell Act. These funds were used in non-traditional ways to eliminate or consolidate irrigation diversions, improve fish passage, conserve water and provide proper screening of water withdrawals. These projects have been undertaken by IDFG on a tributary wide basis to maximize the potential for success.

Location of Project: All portions of the project are located in the Salmon and Clearwater River drainages. This contract provides funding to support the capitalization project 2007-399-00. Legal descriptions for each capital improvement project are located in the companion project 2007-399-00.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
1994
Ending FY:
2025
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
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - All Anadromous Populations
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Freshwater Mussels
Lamprey, Pacific
Sockeye - All Populations
Sockeye - Snake River ESU
Steelhead - All Populations
Steelhead - Snake River DPS
Sturgeon, White - All Populations except Kootenai R. DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull
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"

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2024 - FY2026)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2024 Expense $491,660 From: Fish Accord - Idaho State of Idaho (ID) 2023-2025 Accord Extension 09/30/2022
FY2024 Expense $4,898 From: Fish Accord - Idaho Accord Transfers (IDFG) 8/22/2023 08/22/2023
FY2024 Expense $4,898 To: Fish Accord - Idaho Accord Transfers (IDFG) 8/22/2023 08/22/2023
FY2025 Expense $503,952 From: Fish Accord - Idaho State of Idaho (ID) 2023-2025 Accord Extension 09/30/2022

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2025
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
2024 (Draft)
2023 $250,000 34%
2022 $250,000 39%
2021 $250,000 37%
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012 $1,364,050 78%
2011 $1,323,834 76%
2010
2009 $1,377,261 78%
2008 $1,565,740 82%
2007 $2,014,082 90%

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Closed, 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
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 Total Contracted Amount Dates
229 REL 1 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 UPPER SALMON RIVER ANADROMOUS FISH PASSAGE Terminated $656,174 4/30/1999 - 6/30/2001
5677 SOW DHI, Inc. 1994-015-00 UPPER SALMON RIVER SUB-BASIN HABITAT RESTORATION History $489,730 7/27/2001 - 4/16/2002
18384 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 UPPER SALMON ANADROMOUS FISH PASSAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJ Closed $705,048 7/1/2004 - 6/30/2005
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
47867 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT Closed $200,031 7/1/2010 - 6/30/2011
48306 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT-FTE Closed $75,620 7/1/2010 - 6/30/2011
53580 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT-FTE Closed $105,450 7/1/2011 - 6/30/2012
53579 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT Closed $314,800 7/1/2011 - 6/30/2012
57842 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT Closed $285,277 7/1/2012 - 6/30/2013
57792 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT-FTE Closed $105,450 7/1/2012 - 6/30/2013
62006 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT Closed $319,032 7/1/2013 - 6/30/2014
61879 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT-FTE Closed $86,191 7/1/2013 - 6/30/2014
65780 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT-FTE Closed $55,078 7/1/2014 - 6/30/2015
66265 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT Closed $307,803 7/1/2014 - 6/30/2015
70536 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT Closed $414,277 7/1/2015 - 6/30/2016
73976 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT Closed $405,936 7/1/2016 - 6/30/2017
77127 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT Closed $362,658 7/1/2017 - 6/30/2018
79686 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT Closed $396,165 7/1/2018 - 6/30/2019
82756 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT Closed $352,761 8/1/2019 - 6/30/2020
85582 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING PLANNING & SUPPORT Closed $417,704 7/1/2020 - 6/30/2021
88219 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT Closed $424,763 7/1/2021 - 6/30/2022
84045 REL 1 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT Closed $393,605 8/1/2022 - 6/30/2023
84045 REL 15 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT Issued $479,668 7/1/2023 - 6/30/2024
84045 REL 29 SOW Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT Issued $491,660 7/1/2024 - 6/30/2025



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):32
Completed:14
On time:14
Status Reports
Completed:110
On time:31
Avg Days Late:25

                Count of Contract Deliverables
Earliest Contract Subsequent Contracts Title Contractor Earliest Start Latest End Latest Status Accepted Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
5666 18384, 23364, 27873, 33528, 38456, 43653, 47867, 53579, 57842, 62006, 66265, 70536, 73976, 77127, 79686, 82756, 85582, 88219, 84045 REL 1, 84045 REL 15, 84045 REL 29 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 07/01/2001 06/30/2025 Issued 76 202 5 0 32 239 86.61% 1
35392 38390, 43275, 48306, 53580, 57792, 61879, 65780 1994-015-00 EXP IDAHO FISH SCREENING IMPROVEMENT-FTE Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 09/01/2007 06/30/2015 Closed 33 41 0 0 8 49 83.67% 0
Project Totals 109 243 5 0 40 288 86.11% 1


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: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1994-015-00-NPCC-20230310
Project: 1994-015-00 - Idaho Fish Screening Improvement
Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Approved Date: 4/15/2022
Recommendation: Implement
Comments: Bonneville and Sponsor to take the review remarks into consideration in project documentation. This project supports past Program investments for operation and maintenance of fish screens. See Policy Issue II.a. and II.b.

[Background: See https://www.nwcouncil.org/2021-2022-anadromous-habitat-and-hatchery-review/]

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1994-015-00-ISRP-20230324
Project: 1994-015-00 - Idaho Fish Screening Improvement
Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Completed Date: None
Documentation Links:
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

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.

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:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

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).

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:

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

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Ryan Hilton Supervisor Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
Patrick Murphy Project Lead Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG)
David Kaplowe Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Robert Shull Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Eric Leitzinger Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Eric Leitzinger Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration