FY 2002 Columbia Plateau proposal 199306600

Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary

Reviews and Recommendations

Additional documents

Title	Type
Full inventory of screening devices within the John Day basin	Response Attachment
Example of the prioritizing standards used by ODFW	Response Attachment
Graphic: Ten Year Comparison Juvenile Sts and ChS: John Day District	Response Attachment
Table 2: Ten-year bypass trap results for summer steelhead basin 6, 2000	Response Attachment
199306600 Narrative	Narrative
199306600 Sponsor Response to the ISRP	Response
Columbia Plateau: John Day Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map
Columbia Plateau: John Day Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects	Subbasin Map

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Oregon Fish Screening Project
Proposal ID	199306600
Organization	Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Ray Hartlerode
Mailing address	P. O. Box 59 Portland, OR 97207
Phone / email	5038725252 / ray.e.hartlerode@state.or.us
Manager authorizing this project	Ray Hartlerode
Review cycle	Columbia Plateau
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Plateau / John Day
Short description	Protect wild anadromous and resident fish species by installing 20 replacement fish screening devices in irrigation diversion located in critical spawning and rearing areas in the John Day basin and 1 unscreened and 5 replacements in the Walla Walla.
Target species	Spring Chinook, Summer Steelhead (listed), Bull Trout (listed), West Slope Cutthroat, Redband Trout

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
44.3878	-118.558	1. Deardorf Cr. no. 03 6-016
44.4028	-118.5792	2. John Day R no.10 6-482
44.4028	-118.7085	3. Dixie Cr. no. 06
44.4843	-118.7045	4. Dixie Cr. no. 05
44.4883	-118.7018	5. Dixie Cr. no.04
44.4095	-118.772	6. Indian Cr. no.08
44.4333	-118.7878	7. Indian Cr. no.15
44.4308	-118.8373	8. John Day R no.3 6-047
44.4223	-118.8707	9. John Day R no.37 6-048
44.422	-118.8718	10. John Day R no.38 6-049
44.4227	-118.8742	11. John Day R no.39 6-050
44.3073	-118.9318	12. Berry Cr. no.01
44.3012	-118.939	13. Canyon Cr. no.05
44.409	-119.0718	14. John Day R no.47 6-071
44.4338	-119.058	15. Beech Cr. no.04
44.4385	-119.0373	16. Beech Cr. no.03
44.4075	-119.1528	17. Riley Cr. no.06
44.404	-119.1538	18. Riley Cr. no.05
44.4207	-119.1522	19. John Day R no.50 6-095
44.4323	-119.2853	20. John Day R no.55 6-104

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description
NMFS	Action 149	NMFS	BOR shall initiate programs in three priority subbasins (identified in the Basinwide Recovery Strategy) per year over 5 years, in coordination with NMFS, FWS, the states and others, to address all flow, passage, and screening problems in each subbasin over 10 years. The Corps shall implement demonstration projects to improve habitat in subbasins where water-diversion-related problems could cause take of listed species. Under the NWPPC program, BPA addresses passage, screening, and flow problems, where they are not the responsibility of others. BPA expects to expand on these measures in coordination with the NWPPC process to complement BOR actions described in the action above.
NMFS	Action 153	NMFS	BPA shall, working with agricultural incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, negotiate and fund long-term protection for 100 miles of riparian buffers per year in accordance with criteria BPA and NMFS will develop by June 1, 2001.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
1997	Constructed 27 new replacement irrigation diversion fish screens in the John Day Basin
1998	Constructed 22 new replacement irrigation diversion fish screens in the John Day Basin
1999	Constructed 19 new replacement irrigation diversion fish screens in the John Day Basin
2000	Constructed 17 new replacement irrigation diversion fish screens and 1 fishway in the John Day Basin

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
8402100	John Day River Fish Habitat	Increased fish production from habitat improvements compliments the need for continued screening efforts
9801600	Natural Escapement - John Day River	Operate trapboxes for pit tagging, migration timing, screen effectiveness, repair of equipment, and use of personnel
9405400	Oregon Bull / Cutthroat Trout Research	Assist with fish trapping, equipment constuction and repair, and use of personnel
20003100	North Fork John Day Habitat Project	Increased fish production from habitat improvements compliments the need for continued screening efforts
9801700	Eliminate Gravel Push-up Dams On Lower North Fork John Day	Design and build screening devices for sump intakes
9801800	John Day Watershed Restoration	Blast and paint diversion components and advice on screening and passage projects
8343600	Umatilla Passage Facilities O & M	Major maintenance ie: rewrap, blast and paint, existing screens
9303800	North Fork Fish Habitat - USFS	Increased fish production from habitat improvements compliments the need for continued screening efforts
9401500	Idaho Fish Screening	Exchange of designs and technology related to screening devices
9105700	Washington Fish Screening	Exchange of designs and technology related to screening devices

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor
1. Reduce fish entrainment in irrigation diversions	a. Construct and install 20 new replacement fish screens in the John Day Basin and 6 on the Walla Walla	ongoing	$585,870
2. Improve fish passge at diversion structures	a. Design and construct 1 diversion structure and fish passage facility per year	ongoing	$75,000

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Reduce fish entrainment in irrigation diversions	2003	2006	$2,522,777
2. Improve fish passge at diversion structures	2003	2006	$325,001

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006
$680,696	$701,117	$722,150	$743,815

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2002 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2002 cost
Personnel	FTE: 8.3	$242,250
Fringe	OPE @ 45%	$109,013
Supplies		$199,004
Indirect	Administrative Overhead @ 20.1%	$110,603
		$660,870

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2002 cost	$660,870
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2002 budget request	$660,870
FY 2002 forecast from 2001	$660,870
% change from forecast	0.0%

Reason for change in scope

Trout Creek has dropped its funding request due to the lack of landowner cooperation at project sites. If in the future any landowners are willing to cooperate, ODFW will costshare the project at that time. The Trout Creek dollars will be used to complete additional replacement projects in the John Day, Walla Walla, Umatilla and, as the need arises, in the Grande Ronde and Imnaha systems.

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
Mitchell Act funding	Cost share fixed facility expenses and O & M on installed screens, personal service on permanent employees	$680,000	cash
OWEB	Cost share screening devices for anadromous and resident fish, personal service for 3 LD employees. Program covers water basins 6 - 12 in NE & SE Oregon.	$505,236	cash

Other budget explanation

The program has taken substanial cuts in Mitchell Act funding for the last three Fiscal Years. Personnnel service costs have also increased. Increases in fixed facility expenses, supplies, materials, and the addition of basin 7 have forced us to use a combination of funding sources to be able to maintain implementation of new replacement screening devices at the level of approximately 20 per year. Our current program operates as follows : Mitchell Act O & M, BPA screen replacement, and OWEB new construction.

Reviews and recommendations

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

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2001-6)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Jun 15, 2001

Comment:

Fundable if adequate responses are given to ISRP concerns. The proposal does a good job in describing the problem, its magnitude, history, and recent activities to address it.

It was good that the proposal included a description of the method for determining priority sites in response to the ISRP's FY2000 concerns, but a response should provide a prioritized list that identifies the specific sites. It's as if there's no inventory of sites. Is there a catalog or map of screens in the basin? Which ones are defective or substandard? Which ones kill fish? If there are 20 projects on line—how were they chosen? Is the effort going to the most needful sites?

The PI and facilities are qualified and appropriate for the proposed work, but if the shop has developed a sound design and it's a matter of propagating the design around the basin, can the fabrication and installation be put out for bid?

Despite the FY 2000 recommendations there's no connection to monitoring and evaluation.. "Delay funding until the authors provide methods for ... monitoring of effectiveness." The response should describe the project's selection of monitoring approach (tier) for establishing the project's biologically measurable results and the justification of this selection (see ISRP's general comments on monitoring).

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
High Priority

Date:
Aug 3, 2001

Comment:

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2001-8)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Aug 10, 2001

Comment:

Fundable. The response was adequate and provided a method for prioritizing potential projects (but note that all sites seem to have roughly the same score, i.e. between 75 and 80 of a possible 100 so it doesn't seem to provide much guidance for choosing projects.) The proposal did a good job of describing the problem, its magnitude, history, and recent activities to address it.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Oct 1, 2001

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Determine priority listings and reduce fish entrainments in irrigation systems by the fabrication and installation of new replacement fish screening and passage structures in the three basins.

Comments
ISRP notes that the proposal's method to prioritize projects would place most of them in roughly the same range. It is impossible to determine the number of projects that would occur in the John Day, which is a priority subbasin. What is the relationship with BoR in this priority subbasin?

Already ESA Req? no

Biop? yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Rank A

Date:
Oct 16, 2001

Comment:

This project continues an apparently effective ODFW irrigation diversion screening program by installing 20 replacement fish screening devices in the John Day Basin and 1 unscreened and 5 replacements in the Walla Walla Basin.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jan 3, 2002

Comment:

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Decision

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Mar 6, 2002

Comment:

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

CAPITAL project. Cost share with OWEB and NMFS. Trying to meet target of 20 screens per year, primarily services and supplies with BPA dollars. Will lose some of OWEB cost share.

REVIEW:
Project Sponsor Request for FY04-05

Recommendation:

Date:
Sep 20, 2003

Comment:

REVIEW:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review

Funding category:
capital

Date:
May 2005

FY05 NPCC start of year:	FY06 NPCC staff preliminary:	FY06 NPCC July draft start of year:
$701,117	$701,117	$701,117

Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website