FY 2003 Columbia Cascade proposal 29025

Section 1. Administrative

Project location

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Outyear objectives-based budget

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Total estimated budget

Cost sharing

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

Comment:

This project would revisit the screens on pumped water diversions in the Methow, Entiat, and Wenatchee basins in order to bring all of them up to current federal and state screening standards. All pump intakes would be inventoried using existing databases. An assessment and correction protocol would be modeled after the Voluntary Cooperative Compliance Program, currently being used in the Walla Walla subbasin funded by BPA. The protocol would include diversion owner agreements (water rights and O&M responsibilities), cost-share agreements (15% by owner), permitting, and coordination with local vendors for making corrective measures to the intakes. Local venders would do the installations. This project would identify appropriate screens for the site and irrigators needs. A four-year project would move progressively from basin to basin. The project would be undertaken by the Washington DFW's Yakima Screen Shop, which has a long track record of screen design and installation. Plans for funding through the state have not materialized because of budget shortfalls, the work was shifted to the salmon recovery program (for which WDFW is not eligible), and BPA is being asked to fund the work.

The proposal was straightforward and well written, generally meeting the ISRP evaluation criteria. There was a good background section, which cited the subbasin summaries and the Habitat Limiting Factors Analysis. The status of inventories and of the screening criteria were provided and the need was adequately justified. The proposers expect clear and immediate benefits to fish from the improvements in screens. The work was well related to regional needs with specific discussions of the HLFA, each subbasin's Subbasin Summary, the NMFS BiOp (with specific RPA cited), the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board's technical team recommendations, and the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program. A general text on relationship to other projects was adequate even though it did not cite specific projects. There are logical and explicit objectives and tasks for 3 years. The Yakima Screen Shop has excellent staff and facilities and a long track record of accomplishing such work.

Some questions remain that should be answered in a response. The objectives, tasks and methods section is too brief to allow scientific review for benefit to fish and wildlife. It is not clear how long-term, cumulative effects of these improvements will be monitored. How will any improvement in local runs that might be attributed to these screenings be documented? Is there a regional monitoring program that will be used to measure success? From an engineering perspective, how would these screen designs perform compared to infiltration galleries that are being used elsewhere? The shift in funding sources suggests that the state may see this effort as a low priority; is this true? One wonders why the Methow was chosen for first action and the Wenatchee for last in the sequence. The relationship of this screening project to other screening projects proposed by the screen shop (including priorities) could be better explained.

Comment:

Comment:

This project would revisit the screens on pumped water diversions in the Methow, Entiat, and Wenatchee basins in order to bring all of them up to current federal and state screening standards. All pump intakes would be inventoried using existing databases. An assessment and correction protocol would be modeled after the Voluntary Cooperative Compliance Program, currently being used in the Walla Walla subbasin funded by BPA. The protocol would include diversion owner agreements (water rights and O&M responsibilities), cost-share agreements (15% by owner), permitting, and coordination with local vendors for making corrective measures to the intakes. Local venders would do the installations. This project would identify appropriate screens for the site and irrigators needs. A four-year project would move progressively from basin to basin. The project would be undertaken by the Washington DFW's Yakima Screen Shop, which has a long track record of screen design and installation. Plans for funding through the state have not materialized because of budget shortfalls, the work was shifted to the salmon recovery program (for which WDFW is not eligible), and BPA is being asked to fund the work.

The proposal was straightforward and well written, generally meeting the ISRP evaluation criteria. There was a good background section, which cited the subbasin summaries and the Habitat Limiting Factors Analysis. The status of inventories and of the screening criteria were provided and the need was adequately justified. The proposers expect clear and immediate benefits to fish from the improvements in screens. The work was well related to regional needs with specific discussions of the HLFA, each subbasin's Subbasin Summary, the NMFS BiOp (with specific RPA cited), the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board's technical team recommendations, and the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program. A general text on relationship to other projects was adequate even though it did not cite specific projects. There are logical and explicit objectives and tasks for 3 years. The Yakima Screen Shop has excellent staff and facilities and a long track record of accomplishing such work. Nonetheless, the ISRP had questions about objectives and tasks, monitoring, and the relative effectiveness of infiltration galleries (found useful in other provinces).

In response to the ISRP's concerns, the proponents clarified objectives and researched costs of infiltration galleries compared to pump screens and provided useful results. Infiltration galleries were shown to be 4 times the cost of the technologies proposed. The benefits of infiltration galleries were shown to be marginal or non-existent for these applications compared to pump screening, especially if fry migrate through gravel. Performance is not better than pump screens, and operation may be more complex than screens. The funding situation was clarified. The response might have mentioned WDFW's long-term monitoring strategy development, which could provide monitoring support for evaluating the effectiveness of these improvements. Selection of the Methow River is in accord with the priority set by the NMFS 2000 BiOp. The relationship to the gravity diversion screening project (29028) was adequately explained.

Comment:

Comments
The proposal is presented by WDFW and the Yakima Screen Shop, which have a long track record of providing high quality work in this area.

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

Comment:

Comment: