Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | High-Speed Fish Screen for Irrigation Diversion |
| Proposal ID | 34034 |
| Organization | West Extension Irrigation District (WEID) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Ben W. Volk, P.E. |
| Mailing address | 2810 W. Clearwater Ste. 201 Kennewick, WA 99336 |
| Phone / email | 5097832144 / bvolk@jub.com |
| Manager authorizing this project | Bev Bridgewater |
| Review cycle | FY 2002 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Columbia Plateau / John Day |
| Short description | Install a high speed fish screen at the lower pump station for the West Extension Irrigation District (Public) and L3 Farms (Private). |
| Target species | Juvenile Fall Chinopok, as well as Umatilla, Snake, and Columbia River Salmonids, and Steelhead. |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 45.9082 |
-119.3399 |
Inlet to West Extension Irrigation District and L3 Farms Pumps, Umatilla, Oregon |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
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
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
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 |
|---|
| Prevent Fish from entering intake channel. |
Construct Fish Screens |
3 |
$230,000 |
Yes |
| Monitor for fish trapped in inlet channel |
Monitoring, Publish Results |
3 |
$15,000 |
Yes |
| Prevent Fish from Entering intake channel |
Permiting |
3 |
$5,000 |
Yes |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
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: 1 |
$15,000 |
| Fringe |
1 |
$5,000 |
| Supplies |
|
$3,000 |
| Travel |
|
$1,500 |
| Indirect |
|
$1,500 |
| Capital |
Screens |
$80,000 |
| NEPA |
NEPA and Permitting |
$5,000 |
| Subcontractor |
|
$101,500 |
| Other |
Engineering |
$37,500 |
| $250,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $250,000 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $250,000 |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
| West Extension Irrigation District |
Labor and Materials |
$25,000 |
in-kind |
| L3 Farms - Dennis Logan |
Labor, and Materials |
$25,000 |
in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
May 24, 2002
Comment:
Not fundable, the proposal is not adequate. This brief proposal leaves too many unaddressed issues for it to be supported at this point. The screen appears to be marginally innovative (used in Alberta previously), and there is no mention of monitoring for effectiveness. The pilot scale evaluation described in the Canadian reference, and observations of the screen in Willow Creek, Alberta, do not adequately demonstrate the ability of the screen to pass salmonids with minimal injury. Has the design been reviewed and endorsed by NMFS or Oregon agencies?
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 28, 2002
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 12, 2002
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit
Benefit unlikely. Intended to create fish passage improvement through the installation of high speed vertical fish screens at the facility. However, see Comments for concerns.
Comments
There is no reason to employ experimental technology at this site and the proposal does not include any sort of biological evaluation or any attempt to follow AFS or NMFS guidance for developing experimental technology. In addition, the proposal fails to rectify a serious operational problem, that being no way to remove debris from the screen face and pass it so that it will not re-impinge. Finally, the project engineer does not identify any experience in fish passage design. The ISRP recommends not to fund the project because the proposal is inadequate.
Already ESA Required?
No
Biop?
No
Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 12, 2002
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Benefit unlikely. Intended to create fish passage improvement through the installation of high speed vertical fish screens at the facility. However, see Comments for concerns.Comments
There is no reason to employ experimental technology at this site and the proposal does not include any sort of biological evaluation or any attempt to follow AFS or NMFS guidance for developing experimental technology. In addition, the proposal fails to rectify a serious operational problem, that being no way to remove debris from the screen face and pass it so that it will not re-impinge. Finally, the project engineer does not identify any experience in fish passage design. The ISRP recommends not to fund the project because the proposal is inadequate.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? No