Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2007-034-00 - Columbia Cascade Pump Screen Correction Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2007-034-00 - Columbia Cascade Pump Screen Correction
Project Number:
Columbia Cascade Pump Screen Correction
This project proposes to start a voluntary compliance pump screen correction program in the Methow, Entiat, and Wenatchee River basins in order to reduce juvenile fish losses due to entrapment in water diversions as called for in the most recent FCRPS BiOp.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Technical Applications Program (TAPPS), proposes to initiate a voluntary cooperative compliance pump-screening program within the Columbia Cascade Providence. This program will be administered similar to one developed by WDFW and the Walla Walla Conservation District for the Walla Walla basin. This on the ground, program will partner with local conservation districts, tribes, and fisheries enhancement groups for outreach and corrections. Initial diversion information will come from existing pump screen inventory information that resides with the WDFW TAPPS group. This information will be used to initiate contact and provide reassessment, design, and correction, (i.e. new screening devices that meet current state and federal fish screening criteria) in the Methow, Okanogan, Entiat, and Wenatchee basins, and Upper Columbia main stem over the next four years. The project objective is to provide 100 percent protection from mortality and/or injury for all species and life stages of anadromous and resident fish, including ESA listed spring Chinook, Steelhead and Bull Trout that come in contact with pump diversions.
Proponent Orgs:
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
Ending FY:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Cascade Columbia Upper Middle 100.00%
Focal Species:
Bass, Smallmouth
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESU
Lamprey, Pacific
Lamprey, River
Pikeminnow, Northern
Sockeye - Lake Wenatchee ESU
Sockeye - Okanogan River ESU
Steelhead - Upper Columbia River DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Brown
Trout, Bull
Trout, Rainbow
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
BiOp Association:
FCRPS 2008 – view list of FCRPS 2008 BiOp Actions

Tributary Habitat Implementation 2007 to 2009

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

No Decided Budget Transfers

Pending Budget Decision?  No

Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2024
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
2009 $0 0%
2008 $5,500 2%
2007 $0 0%


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.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
34407 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 200703400 EXP COL CAS PUMP SCREEN CORRECTION History $87,527 8/15/2007 - 9/15/2008
39479 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2007-034-00 EXP COL CASCADE PUMP SCREEN CORRECTION History $105,848 9/16/2008 - 9/30/2009
45314 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2007-034-00 EXP COL CAS PUMP SCREEN CORRECTION History $115,932 9/16/2009 - 9/15/2010
50444 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2007-034-00 EXP COL CAS PUMP SCREEN CORRECTION History $258,161 9/16/2010 - 9/15/2011

Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):3
On time:0
Status Reports
On time:3
Avg Days Late:108

                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
34407 39479, 45314, 50444 2007-034-00 EXP COL CAS PUMP SCREEN CORRECTION Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 08/15/2007 09/15/2011 History 16 24 0 0 110 134 17.91% 1
Project Totals 16 24 0 0 110 134 17.91% 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: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2007-034-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2007-034-00 - Columbia Cascade Pump Screen Correction
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Funding is conditioned upon favorable ISRP and Council review of a reponse to the ISRP concerns.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-034-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2007-034-00 - Columbia Cascade Pump Screen Correction
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Response Requested
Final Round ISRP Comment:
There is a clear need for this work, but the ISRP recommends a response on several specific issues (see list below). The ISRP's primary concerns are that the proponents do not adequately explain the extent of the problem, and no monitoring and evaluation of effectiveness is proposed.

1. The background information is brief but to the point, and basically indicates that the extent of the problem related to salmonid mortality at pump withdrawal sites is not known. There are anecdotal accounts of fish being entrained during pump operation but a much more complete documentation of the severity of this problem would seem appropriate before funding an expensive program to upgrade screening at all pump locations. The proposal would be improved by a more detailed summary of the TAPPS pump screen inventory data for the Methow, Entiat, and Wenatchee, and Okanogan Basins and new screening criteria adopted by the CBFWA's Fish Screen Oversight Committee. Only one reference (Everest and Chapman 1992) is cited. More detailed information on the extent of the problem is needed.

2. The need to evaluate the impact of pump diversions is clearly indicated in the subbasin plans for the Columbia Cascade Province. This evaluation should be completed before launching a screen upgrade program. The proposal includes a thorough listing of relevant plans, other entities in the Columbia Basin working on screening projects, and ongoing projects in the Columbia Cascade Province that are producing fish that could benefit from correcting pumps that are killing fish. Can the proponents provide comprehensive information on the pumps that are causing fish mortality, and the specific interactions between this project and others projects that would benefit? Collaboration with specific projects funded in the Fish and Wildlife Program and described in the subbasin plan inventory is not described.

3. The objectives related to the assessment of the pump screens in the province are appropriate and would be an important contribution. Without further justification, the objectives related to installing new screens are premature. How were the costs for repairing screens estimated without knowing which screens would be fixed? The ISRP suggests that the project should undertaken in a sequenced fashion, with the initial focus on understanding the severity of the problem with pumps, identifying those pump sites that have the greatest impact on listed fishes, and determining which irrigators would be willing to work on a cooperative project to correct the priority screens.

4. There is relatively little detail provided on the work elements. What are the assessment and correction protocols of the Voluntary Cooperative Compliance Program? How will the screen assessments be conducted? What criteria will be used to judge the severity of the entrainment problem at a given site? Are any studies to quantify the severity of the problem planned? If so, what is the design?

5. There is no specific monitoring for effectiveness proposed, although there is presumably basin monitoring that will be useful. Even though we assume that WDFW staff are familiar with screens, and know what works and what does not, the lack of M&E is a deficiency. There are demonstrated benefits from screening irrigation intakes to any species that could be entrained in a water intake, not just salmon. The benefits to the fish and the overall effectiveness of this project would be enhanced if those specific screens that are most problematic could be identified and addressed first. It is likely that benefits will persist over the long-term, but this could not be substantiated without periodic M&E.
The proponent's response should include a specific plan for monitoring effectiveness.

6. The facilities appear to be appropriate, but what is the actual WDFW office where the program would be located? The proponents appear to be well qualified to conduct the outreach and construction parts of the project. A lead person will be hired and trained specifically for this project. Will this person have the scientific background to successfully design and implement a program for monitoring screen effectiveness? The data collected will reside in the WDFW TAPPS database, but what is the specific information sharing strategy with the other agencies and entities would benefit from this project?

In summary, the ISRP suggests that the proposal could be restructured to focus on the assessment portions of the project. More detail should be provided on how the assessment will be conducted. Once the assessment is complete and the pump sites prioritized, a proposal for funding to correct the screens and evaluate the effectiveness of the screens could be submitted. The proponents need to demonstrate provisions for monitoring and evaluation of the proposed screening work, whether they or another division of WDFW or others are doing the evaluation.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 2007-034-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2007-034-00
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: Correcting irrigation screens; irrigators authorized/required to do (assuming impacting listed fish).

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2007-034-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2007-034-00
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
Jamie Cleveland Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Sheri Combs (Inactive) Administrative Contact Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Cherylyn Tunnicliffe (Inactive) Interested Party Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Steven Vigg (Inactive) Interested Party Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Eric Egbers (Inactive) Interested Party Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Rosemary Mazaika (Inactive) Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
David Price Supervisor Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Donald Rose (Inactive) Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Patrick Schille (Inactive) Project Lead Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)