FY 2002 Mountain Snake proposal 199401500
Contents
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 |
|---|---|
| 199401500 Narrative | Narrative |
| 199401500 Sponsor Response to the ISRP | Response |
| Mountain Snake: Salmon Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
| Mountain Snake: Salmon Subbasin Map with BPA Fish & Wildlife Projects | Subbasin Map |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Idaho Fish Screen Improvement |
| Proposal ID | 199401500 |
| Organization | Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Idaho Office of Species Conservation (IDFG/IOSC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Patrick Marcuson |
| Mailing address | PO Box 1336 Salmon, ID 83467 |
| Phone / email | 2087566022 / pmarcuso@idfg.state.id.us |
| Manager authorizing this project | Pat Marcuson |
| Review cycle | Mountain Snake |
| Province / Subbasin | Mountain Snake / Salmon |
| Short description | Enhance passage of juvenile and adult fish in Idaho's anadromous fish corridors by consolidation and elimination of irrigation diversions. Minimize adverse fish impacts of irrigation diversion dams by screening pump intakes and canals. |
| Target species | All anadromous and resident fishes |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Entire Salmon subbasin | ||
| 45 | -114.98 | Salmon subbasin |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Habitat RPA Action 149 |
| Habitat RPA Action 150 |
| Habitat RPA Action 151 |
| Habitat RPA Action 153 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| NMFS/BPA | 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 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 |
|---|---|
| 2000 | Treated 82 sites , replaced 9 fish screens to NMFS criteria, installed 2 new screens on previously unscreened ditches, eliminated 4 diversions, installed 48 pump screens on unscreened diversions, upgraded 6 existing pump screens eliminated 11 pumps. |
| 1999 | Treated 62 sites, replaced 11 fish screens to NMFS criteria, eliminated 5 fish screens, installed 11 new screens on previously unscreened ditches, eliminated 2 diversion dams, installed 40 pump screens, 6 headgates, two safety fences. |
| 1999 | Provided technical assistance. Saved an estimated 109,500 chinook, 15,150 steelhead and 600 bull trout at 35 Salmon River fish screens. |
| 1998 | Constructed fish screens, 4 fish friendly diversions, safety fences, canal eliminations and two stream reconnects, 20 pump intake screens and 12 headgate installations. |
| 1997 | Constructed fish screens on consolidated canals, three fish friendly diversions, 20 pump intake screens, 2 infiltration screens and 17 headgeates. |
| 1994 | Equipment purchased and screen construction to NMFS |
| 1993 | Build Anadromous Fish Screen Shop |
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 199202603 | Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project (USBWP) Administration/Implementation Support | Coordination and prioritization of screening and habitat improvement activities (RPA Actions #149, 150, 151, 152, 153, and 154) |
| 199306200 | Salmon River Anadromous Fish Passage Enhancement | RPA Action # 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154 - Improve Passage on Lemhi, Pahsimeroi, and East Fork Watersheds |
| 199600700 | Consolidations | RPA Action # 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154 - Consolidate irrigation diversions on Lemhi, Pahsimeroi, and Upper Salmon watersheds |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Complete surveys, designs, of Idaho's Anadromous fish corridors | a. Complete topographic surveys of unscreened and obsolete fish screen sites. | 4 | $12,000 | Yes |
| b. Design appropriate fish screen headgate and fish friendly diversion at each site. | 4 | $0 | ||
| c. Contract construction at each site. | 4 | $0 | ||
| 2. Reduce the number of gravel push-up diversion dams by consolidation and elimination of irrigation ditches. | a. Identify potential consolidation and ditch elimination sites. | 4 | $2,719 | |
| b. Attain easements and flow agreements. | 4 | $0 | ||
| c. Design consolidations and replacement of surface water diversions to ground water systems. | 4 | $0 | ||
| 3. Maximize any rearing habitat in appropriate irrigation canals. | a. Evaluate fish habitat in irrigation ditches and in immediate stream fishery. | 4 | $2,715 | |
| b. Locate fish screen to maximize rearing habitat. | 4 | $2,715 | ||
| 4. Reconnect streams to anadromous fish corridors. | a. Locate streams providing historic spawning and rearing for anadromous fish. | 4 | $2,717 | |
| b. Determine if adequate water attracts anadromous fish. | 4 | $2,717 | ||
| c. Design | 4 | $0 | ||
| 5. Install and evaluate alternative fish screens. | a. Identify sites for infiltration and other simpler means of saving fish from irrigation practices. | 4 | $2,717 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Complete surveys and designs of Idaho's anadromous fish corridors. | 2003 | 2006 | $24,000 |
| 2. Reduce the number of gravel push-up diversiondams by consolidation and elimination of irrigation ditches. | 2003 | 2006 | $10,876 |
| 3. Maximize any rearing habitat in appropriate irrigation canals. | 2003 | 2006 | $17,420 |
| 4. Reconnect streams to anadromous fish corridors. | 2003 | 2006 | $21,736 |
| 5. Install and evaluate alternative fish screens. | 2003 | 2006 | $10,868 |
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $28,300 | $28,300 | $14,150 | $14,150 |
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Construction & installation of all unscreened gravity and pump intakes in Idaho's anadromous fish corridors. | a. Fabricate and install fish screen and associated components at each site. | 4 | $400,000 | Yes |
| b. Locate, measure, design, build and install fish screens on pump intakes. | 4 | $26,087 | ||
| 2. Reduce the number of gravel push-up diversion dams by consolidation and elimination of irrigation ditches. | a. Replace surface water diversions to ground water systems. | 4 | $50,000 | |
| b. Construct by contract and IDFG crew. | 4 | $200,000 | Yes | |
| 3. Maximize any rearing habitat in appropriate irrigation canals. | a. Locate fish screen to maximize rearing habitat. | 4 | $10,000 | |
| 4. Reconnect streams to anadromous fish corridors. | a. Implement the reconnect. | 4 | $17,139 | |
| b. Install fish screens where needed. | 4 | $135,089 | Yes | |
| 5. Install alternative fish screens. | a. Construct and install. | 4 | $30,000 | |
| 6. Make accessible fish screens safer to humans and domestic pets. | a. Fence accessible screen sites. | 4 | $2,500 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Construction & installation of all unscreened gravity and pump intakes in Idaho's anadromous fish corridors. | 2003 | 2006 | $1,653,505 |
| 2. Reduce the number of gravel push-up diversion dams by consolidation and elimination of irrigation ditches. | 2003 | 2006 | $970,169 |
| 3. Maximize any rearing habitat in appropriate irrigation canals. | 2003 | 2006 | $38,807 |
| 4. Reconnect streams to anadromous fish corridors. | 2003 | 2006 | $590,747 |
| 5. Install alternative fish screens. | 2003 | 2006 | $116,420 |
| 6. Make accessible fish screens safer to humans and domestic pets. | 2003 | 2006 | $9,702 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $914,350 | $960,000 | $1,005,000 | $500,000 |
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Complete surveys, designs, construction and installations of all unscreened, obsolete gravity and pump intakes in Idaho's anadromous fish corridors. | a. Maintain fish screens and by-pass pipe operation. | 20+ | $0 | |
| b. Maintain occassional pump screen. | 4 | $2,500 | ||
| 2. Reduce the number of gravel push-up diversion dams by consolidation and elimination of irrigation ditches. | a. Check integrity and fix deficiencies. | 4 | $48,391 | |
| 3. Reconnect streams to anadromous fish corridors. | a. Fix deficiencies. | 4 | $2,800 | |
| b. Maintain screens. | 20+ | $1,766 | ||
| 4. Install and evaluate alternative fish screens. | a. Maintain alternative fish screens. | 20+ | $15,000 | |
| 5. Make accessible fish screens safer to humans and domestic pets. | a. Repair fences as needed. | 20+ | $500 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Complete surveys, designs, construction and installations of all unscreened, obsolete gravity and pump intakes in Idaho's anadromous fish corridors. | 2003 | 2006 | $9,684 |
| 2. Reduce the number of gravel push-up diversion dams by consolidation and elimination of irrigation ditches. | 2003 | 2006 | $187,441 |
| 3. Reconnect streams to anadromous fish corridors. | 2003 | 2006 | $17,686 |
| 4. Install and evaluate alternative fish screens. | 2003 | 2006 | $58,102 |
| 5. Make accessible fish screens safer to humans and domestic pets. | 2003 | 2006 | $1,937 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $74,500 | $78,200 | $82,150 | $40,000 |
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2002 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Complete surveys, designs, construction and installations of all unscreened, obsolete gravity and pump intakes in Idaho's anadromous fish corridors. | a. Check selected screens for numbers and kinds of fish returned to stream. | 20+ | $5,518 | |
| b. Monitor presence or absence of fish down canal of fish screen. | 20+ | $3,500 | ||
| 2. Reduce the number of gravel push-up diversion dams by consolidation and elimination of irrigation ditches. | a. Evaluate and adjust as needed for proper function. | 20+ | $3,600 | |
| 3. Maximize any rearing habitat in appropriate irrigation canals. | a. Electrofish or snorkel. | 20+ | $3,500 | |
| b. Observation of fish utilizing irrigation canals. | 20+ | $4,000 | ||
| 4. Reconnect streams to anadromous fish corridors. | a. Resurvey fish presence or absence in re-connected stream. | 4 | $5,910 | |
| 5. Install and evaluate alternative fish screens. | a. Monitor and evaluate function of alternative fish screens. | 4 | $3,900 |
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Complete surveys, designs, construction and installations of all unscreened, obsolete gravity and pump intakes in Idaho's anadromous fish corridors. | 2003 | 2006 | $35,255 |
| 2. Reduce the number of gravel push-up diversion dams by consolidation and elimination of irrigation ditches. | 2003 | 2006 | $14,074 |
| 3. Maximize any rearing habitat in appropriate irrigation canals. | 2003 | 2006 | $29,320 |
| 4. Reconnect streams to anadromous fish corridors. | 2003 | 2006 | $23,104 |
| 5. Install and evaluate alternative fish screens. | 2003 | 2006 | $15,247 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
| FY 2003 | FY 2004 | FY 2005 | FY 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $31,400 | $33,000 | $34,600 | $18,000 |
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2002 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | FTE: . | $41,670 |
| Fringe | $14,420 | |
| Supplies | $54,000 | |
| Travel | $7,000 | |
| Indirect | $31,000 | |
| Capital | $629,840 | |
| Subcontractor | $210,070 | |
| Other | $12,000 | |
| $1,000,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2002 cost | $1,000,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2002 budget request | $1,000,000 |
| FY 2002 forecast from 2001 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Reason for change in estimated budget
no change
Reason for change in scope
no change in scope
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| Irrigators | Cost Share | $12,000 | cash |
| $8,000 | in-kind | ||
| Mitchell Act | Grant Award | $1,362,056 | cash |
| USBR | Biologist | $60,000 | in-kind |
| NRCS | Technical designs on headgates | $5,000 | in-kind |
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Fundable only if response is adequate
Sep 28, 2001
Comment:
Fundable if the proponents include monitoring data shown at the presentation in their proposal and if they report on the maintenance protocols. A response to the ISRP is not necessary; the ISRP concerns can be addressed by the Council in the project selection process or BPA in the contracting process. The Washington program has an established protocol for effectiveness monitoring that may provide a good model. This would ensure consistency across the basin. The proposal is adequate for multiyear funding or until completion in 2005.This is an excellent proposal to continue an expensive fish screening program. There appears to be good collaboration among agencies and landowners. The proposal notes that screening should be complete by 2005.
The primary criticism in the FY00 review by the ISRP was the lack of monitoring and evaluation of results. The reviewers suggested incorporating monitoring and evaluation protocols and benchmarks into the project. The current proponents state that several screens were monitored by catching all fish diverted from the irrigation canal back to the river via the by-pass pipe. Six fish screens on the Lemhi River by-passed 841 fish in 150 days of the 1997 irrigating season. Two screens passed 632 (98%) steelhead during the irrigation season on the Pahsimeroi River. However, there is no indication of an appropriate consistent monitoring and evaluation protocol (e.g., systematic sample survey for screen effectiveness) that can be repeated over time. Perhaps a systematic sample of projects could be visited each year such that all are surveyed over a 5-year period. The ISRP does not expect a research level monitoring and evaluation scientific study. Tier I monitoring for effectiveness of the project, as described in the introduction to this report, should be sufficient. It may be sufficient to have a regular schedule for checking effectiveness of previous projects, some periodic search of irrigation ditches downstream of screens, monitoring of water temperature returning from irrigation ditches, etc. The Washington protocol may serve as a good model.
Comment:
A new position has been established/filled to develop and implement an M&E program. In addition, an element of the program will be to construct and maintain fences around the screening facilities. This program is essential to the continued protection/management of protected species/populations. This projects addresses RPAs 149 and 500.Comment:
Fundable if the proponents include the monitoring data shown at the presentation and, if they report on the maintenance protocols. A response to the ISRP was not requested; the ISRP concerns can be addressed by the Council in the project selection process or BPA in the contracting process. The Washington program has an established protocol for effectiveness monitoring that may provide a good model. This would ensure consistency across the basin. The proposal is adequate for multiyear funding or until completion in 2005.This is an excellent proposal to continue an expensive fish-screening program. There appears to be good collaboration among agencies and landowners. The proposal notes that screening should be complete by 2005.
The primary criticism in the FY00 review by the ISRP was the lack of monitoring and evaluation of results. The reviewers suggested incorporating monitoring and evaluation protocols and benchmarks into the project. The current proponents state that several screens were monitored by catching all fish diverted from the irrigation canal back to the river via the by-pass pipe. Six fish screens on the Lemhi River by-passed 841 fish in 150 days of the 1997 irrigating season. Two screens passed 632 (98%) steelhead during the irrigation season on the Pahsimeroi River. However, there is no indication of an appropriate consistent monitoring and evaluation protocol (e.g., systematic sample survey for screen effectiveness) that can be repeated over time. Perhaps a systematic sample of projects could be visited each year such that all are surveyed over a 5-year period. The ISRP does not expect a research level monitoring and evaluation scientific study. Tier I monitoring for effectiveness of the project, as described in the introduction to this report, should be sufficient. It may be sufficient to have a regular schedule for checking effectiveness of previous projects, some periodic search of irrigation ditches downstream of screens, monitoring of water temperature returning from irrigation ditches, etc. The Washington protocol may serve as a good model.
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESUImprove the survival of out-migrating smolts by replacing old ineffective screens with modern designs that will reduce or eliminate injury and mortality caused by impingement and entrainment.
Comments
This proposal is part of a process to complete Idaho's screening program, which is approximately 75% complete. Evaluations of fish screens, reconnected stream projects and sites needing attention are on-going using a combination of in-kind and combined private, state, and federal funding sources. This important program constructs fish screens in both priority (RPA 149) and non-priority (500) subbasins in Idaho. All screening program would be completed in all the basins in the next three years. The program is funded through a combination of Mitchell Act and BPA grants. This very important proposal would help expedite the completion of the program.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Comment:
Recommend as critical to implementation of RPA 149. BPA RPA RPM:
149
NMFS RPA/USFWS RPM:
149, 500
Comment:
Comment:
Fund to implement RPA 149.Comment:
CAPITAL.Comment:
NW Power and Conservation Council's FY 2006 Project Funding Review
expense
May 2005
| FY05 NPCC start of year: | FY06 NPCC staff preliminary: | FY06 NPCC July draft start of year: |
| $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 |
Sponsor comments: See comment at Council's website