FY07-09 proposal 198506200
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Juvenile Fish Screen Evaluations in Columbia Plateau Province |
| Proposal ID | 198506200 |
| Organization | Pacific Northwest National Laboratory |
| Short description | The goal of this project is to monitor and evaluate fish screen facilities to ensure they meet NMFS criteria for safe juvenile fish passage. Fish screens will be evaluated in most subbasins within the Columbia Plateau Province. |
| Information transfer | Annual reports will be provided on-line at http://www.efw.bpa.gov and at http://www.pnl.gov/ecology/Projects/Screen/Reports.htm. These reports will discuss the results of the fish screen evaluations, any problems that were identified, and whether the problem was rectified. If problems are noted in the field, we will provide that information to the operations and maintenance (O&M)agency and work with them if possible to correct the problem. These evaluations will provide the O&M agencies with monitoring and evaluation of their fish screening projects. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Mickie Chamness | Pacific Northwest National Laboratory | mickie.chamness@pnl.gov |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Mickie Chamness | Pacific Northwest National Laboratory | mickie.chamness@pnl.gov |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / None Selected
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multiple locations along the Umatilla River and it's tributaries | |||
| Multiple locations along the John Day River and it's tributaries | |||
| Multiple locations along the Yakima River and it's tributaries | |||
| Multiple locations along the Walla Walla River and it's tributaries in Washington and Oregon | |||
| Multiple locations along the Deshcutes River and it's tributaries |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Anadromous Fishsecondary: Bull Trout
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|---|
| 2005 | Evaluated 26 Phase II Yakima River fish screen facilities three times each. A report containing results of the evaluations is in progress. |
| 2004 | Evaluated 25 Phase II Yakima River fish screen facilities three times each. Evaluation results are documented in a report for BPA. |
| 2003 | Evaluated 23 Phase II Yakima River fish screen facilities three times each. Evaluation results are documented in a report for BPA. |
| 2002 | Evaluated 23 Phase II Yakima River fish screen facilities three times each. Evaluation results are documented in a report for BPA. |
| 2001 | Evaluated 23 Phase II Yakima River fish screen facilities three times each. Evaluation results are documented in a report for BPA. |
| 2000 | Evaluated 21 Phase II Yakima River fish screen facilities three times each. Evaluation results are documented in a report for BPA. |
| 1999 | Evaluated 20 Phase II Yakima River fish screen facilities at twice each. Evaluation results are documented in a report for BPA. |
| 1998 | Evaluated 19 Phase II Yakima River fish screen facilites up to three times each. Evaluation results are documented in a report for BPA. |
| 1997 | Evaluated 19 Phase II Yakima River fish screen facilities at least three times each. Evaluation results are documented in a report for BPA. |
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| BPA | 199601100 | Juv Screens & Traps Wallawalla | We have been evaluating fish screens in the Walla Walla basin for the past 4 years, as well as providing data and technical expertise needed to address problems at the Nursery Bridge fish passage facility. Site conditions are compared to NMFS criteria and results provided in annual report. |
| BPA | 199105700 | Yakima Bas Screen Fab Ph 2 | We evaluate the fish screening sites built by this project in the Yakima River subbasin. Site conditions are compared to NMFS criteria and results provided in annual report. |
| BPA | 199107500 | Yakima Fish Screens Cons Bor | We evaluate the fish screening sites built by this project in the Yakima River subbasin. Site conditions are compared to NMFS criteria and results provided in annual report.. |
| BPA | 199200900 | Yakima Ph Ii/Huntsvill Scr O&M | We evaluate the fish screening facilities maintained by this project in the Yakima River subbasin and on the Touchet River. Site conditions are compared to NMFS criteria and results provided in annual report. |
| BPA | 199503300 | O&M Yakima Basin Fish Screens | We evaluate the fish screening facilites maintained by this project in the Yakima River subbasin. Site conditions are compared to NMFS criteria and results provided in annual report. |
| BPA | 199306600 | Oregon Fish Screens Project | We would be evaluating fish screening sites installed and maintained by this project in the John Day and Umatilla River basins. Site conditions would be compared to NMFS criteria and results provided in annual report. |
| BPA | 200202501 | Yakima Tributary Access & Habi | We would be evaluating screens installed in the Yakima River subbasin under this project. Site conditions would be compared to NMFS criteria and results provided in annual report.. |
| BPA | 199601100 | Juv Screens & Traps Wallawalla | We currently evaluate Walla Walla screens sites as a part of this project. That work would be incorporated into the work under this proposal. Site conditions would be compared to NMFS criteria and results provided in annual report. |
| BPA | 199803400 | Establish Safe Access Tributar | We would be evaluating fish screening sites installed and maintained by this project in the Yakima River basin. Site conditions would be compared to NMFS criteria and results provided in annual report. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Deschutes | The Deschutes subbasin plan describes lack of adequate fish screens as a limiting factor in most or all of it's tributaries. There is little or no evaluation of these facilities once they are installed to ensure they are functioning as designed, or that they are adjusted to meet NMFS criteria for velocities through the facility, bypass conditions, and prevention of entrainment or impingement of juvenile fish. Our project will provide this monitoring. | Deschutes | Strategies are listed by tributary; many of them indicate screening diversions is completed or is planned. |
| Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, John Day | Several limiting factors related to fish screens have been identified in the John Day basin. The limiting factors include entrainment in irrigation diversons, harassment (caused by human actions or structures) and obstructions. The subbasin plan's strategy to rectify the limiting factors is to screen all water diversions, ensure screened facilities are fish friendly, and that they allow safe passage past obstructions. There is little or no evaluation of these facilities once they are installed to ensure they are functioning as designed, or that they are adjusted to meet NMFS criteria for velocities through the facility, bypass conditions, and prevention of entrainment or impingement of juvenile fish. Our project will provide this monitoring. | John Day | Strategy B: Install Fish Screens on Water Diversions |
| Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Umatilla | Two of the limiting factors identified for natural production in the Umatilla subbasin are habitat quantity and fish passage. There is little or no evaluation of these facilities once they are installed to ensure they are functioning as designed, or that they are adjusted to meet NMFS criteria for velocities through the facility, bypass conditions, and prevention of entrainment or impingement of juvenile fish. Our project will provide this monitoring. | Umatilla | Strategy 13. Increase passage efficiency of in-stream obstructions including culverts, bridges, diversion structures, and unscreened diversions. Strategy 14. Maintain passage efficiency through ongoing O&M activities. |
| Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Yakima | One of the key findings for the low- and mid-elevation Yakima River and the mid-elevation Naches River is inadequate screening at some of the irrigation diversions, which cause fish mortality. Old screens are being replaced or improved and screens are being installed at diversions without any. We propose to continue evaluating Phase II screens as well as other fish screens in the Yakima subbasin to ensure they are functioning as designed and are adjusted to meet NMFS criteria for velocities through the facility, bypass conditions, and prevention of entrainment or impingement of juvenile fish. Our project will provide this monitoring. | Yakima | Continue with screening and passage improvements, monitoring program |
| Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria,Walla Walla | The Walla Walla subbasin plan lists water diversions that are not screened or are inadequately screened as imminent threats to focal species. Old screens are being replaced or improved and new screens are being installed that are designed to meet NMFS criteria. Monitoring of the facilities after construction is planned to ensure they are functioning as designed, i.e., that they are adjusted to meet NMFS criteria for water velocity through the facility, bypass conditions, and prevention of entrainment/impingement of juvenile fish. Our project will provide this monitoring. | Walla Walla | Strategy to address imminent threats - Fish Diversions/Screens |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manage and Administer Projects | Project Management | Provide oversight on the project throughout the performance period. Respond to BPA as requested, providing financial, contractual, and administrative documents, including quarterly Pisces reports. Coordinate with O&M and construction agencies in Columbia Plateau province to select fish screen facilities. | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $38,453 |
|
Biological objectives Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Deschutes Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, John Day Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Umatilla Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Yakima Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria,Walla Walla |
Metrics |
||||
| Produce Annual Report | Dissemination of Screens Evaluation Results | Produce an annual report containing a description of the methods used, sites evaluated and results of the evaluations. The report will be available on-line at http://www.efw.bpa.gov and at http://www.pnl.gov/ecology/Projects/Screen/Reports.htm | 10/1/2007 | 12/31/2009 | $61,451 |
|
Biological objectives Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Deschutes Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, John Day Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Umatilla Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Yakima Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria,Walla Walla |
Metrics |
||||
| Analyze/Interpret Data | Problem Identification and Correction | We will implement a standardized protocol for identifying, correcting, and following up any problems that may be discovered during our evaluations. Screens O&M staff will be notified as soon as a problem is identified. Timing of the follow-up evaluation will depend on the time of year, with more rapid follow-ups occurring when anadromous smolts are emigrating. All follow-ups for field-identified problems will occur within two weeks of the identification of the problem. At locations where the initial evaluation indicates there is a problem, we will try to coordinate with the O&M agency to immediately measure the effects of changes they make to settings at the facility, providing them with feedback to fine-tune the settings as needed to try to bring the site into compliance. Problems and results of any corrective actions will be documented in the annual report. | 4/15/2007 | 10/15/2009 | $43,358 |
|
Biological objectives Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Deschutes Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, John Day Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Umatilla Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Yakima Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria,Walla Walla |
Metrics Focal Area: Tributaries Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/Compliance Monitoring |
||||
| Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | On-Site Evaluations of Fish Screen Facilities | We will examine up to 25% of the fish screening facilities in the Columbia Plateau province and evaluate their ability to protect fish. We will monitor approach and sweep velocities in front of the screens and in the fish bypass to determine if the facilities meet NMFS fish passage criteria. Screen integrity will be evaluated using underwater video technology. At locations where the initial evaluation indicates there is a problem, perform additional evaluations may be conducted. These evaluations will provide the O&M and construction agencies with project compliance monitoring of their projects as part of their metrics documentation. This work provides an independent and limited, stratified sample of fish screen facilities for compliance with NMFS criteria. | 4/15/2007 | 10/15/2009 | $141,044 |
|
Biological objectives Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Deschutes Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, John Day Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Umatilla Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria, Yakima Ensure fish screens meet NMFS criteria,Walla Walla |
Metrics Primary R, M, and E Type: Project Implementation/Compliance Monitoring Focal Area: Tributaries |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | Research Scientist/Eng .88 FTE; Technician .07 FTE | $21,243 | $22,082 | $23,186 |
| Fringe Benefits | [blank] | $7,350 | $7,464 | $7,535 |
| Supplies | Video tapes, gloves, minor repairs and expendable supplies | $515 | $527 | $540 |
| Travel | Field work in WA and OR | $7,654 | $7,837 | $8,025 |
| Overhead | [blank] | $39,078 | $40,292 | $41,641 |
| Other | Graduate student | $15,877 | $16,406 | $17,054 |
| Totals | $91,717 | $94,608 | $97,981 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $284,306 |
| Total work element budget: | $284,306 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Totals | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $100,000 FY 2011 estimated budget: $100,000 |
Comments: This is an estimate based on current predictions of cost. |
Future O&M costs: New fish screens are still being installed and old ones improved. These fish screens should be evaluated to ensure they meet NMFS criteria.
Termination date: none
Comments: This project should be continued as a way to monitor the investment made in fish screens as a way to protect juvenile salmonids. Fish screens in other provinces may be added in the future.
Final deliverables:
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Fund Pending Available Funds |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC comments: This ongoing project is likely to benefit fish. The need for properly functioning juvenile fish screens is clearly identified. The relationship to other projects and the rationale for this project in the context of past and current fish screening projects are clearly noted. Collaborative effort with screening projects is described. The project history is described in detail. The proponents have carefully documented results in annual reports. The 2005 annual report showed strong evidence that appropriate data are being collected, well analyzed, and taken seriously. Most screens function properly, but it is clear from the report that PNNL staff are working actively with BOR and WDFW to remedy a few problem spots. A summary of the number of problems identified, their severity, and the resolution of the problems would strengthen the proposal. Also, a description of how selection of sites will be prioritized would have been useful. The proposal would be improved by more detail on how the target of 25% subsampling was chosen, how the various sites were stratified, and whether or not this subsampling level is a representative sample. The timelines for the work are vague because there is little detail concerning which subbasins will be monitored when, and how prioritization will be made. The facilities appear appropriate. The key personnel have a long history with this project. Future proposals should specify the proportion of time each person will devote to the project and indicate the timeframe for activities. In the future the sponsors should provide information that makes it clear that this project is a success in terms of impact on fish. While the description of problems and solutions identified at fish screens are available in annual reports with excellent links provided in the proposal the ISRP would like to have a summary of these activities presented in future proposals.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable
NPCC comments: This ongoing project is likely to benefit fish. The need for properly functioning juvenile fish screens is clearly identified. The relationship to other projects and the rationale for this project in the context of past and current fish screening projects are clearly noted. Collaborative effort with screening projects is described. The project history is described in detail. The proponents have carefully documented results in annual reports. The 2005 annual report showed strong evidence that appropriate data are being collected, well analyzed, and taken seriously. Most screens function properly, but it is clear from the report that PNNL staff are working actively with BOR and WDFW to remedy a few problem spots. A summary of the number of problems identified, their severity, and the resolution of the problems would strengthen the proposal. Also, a description of how selection of sites will be prioritized would have been useful. The proposal would be improved by more detail on how the target of 25% subsampling was chosen, how the various sites were stratified, and whether or not this subsampling level is a representative sample. The timelines for the work are vague because there is little detail concerning which subbasins will be monitored when, and how prioritization will be made. The facilities appear appropriate. The key personnel have a long history with this project. Future proposals should specify the proportion of time each person will devote to the project and indicate the timeframe for activities. In the future the sponsors should provide information that makes it clear that this project is a success in terms of impact on fish. While the description of problems and solutions identified at fish screens are available in annual reports with excellent links provided in the proposal the ISRP would like to have a summary of these activities presented in future proposals.