FY 2000 proposal 199306600

Additional documents

TitleType
199306600 Narrative Narrative
199306600 Sponsor Response to the ISRP Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleOregon Fish Screening Project - FY’00 Proposal
Proposal ID199306600
OrganizationOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameRoy Elicker
Mailing addressP.O. Box 59 Portland, OR 97207
Phone / email5038725252 / Roy.Elicker@state.or.us
Manager authorizing this project
Review cycleFY 2000
Province / SubbasinColumbia Plateau / John Day
Short descriptionInstall 25 new fish screening devices in critical chinook spawning and rearing areas in John Day basin. Construct and install one fish passage improvement (removable diversion structure/fish screen system/ladder) in Trout Creek (Deschutes River basin).
Target speciesChinook and Steelhead,Bull Trout, Westslope Cutthroat, Rainbow.
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment
1997 Built 29 new screens
1998 Built 27 new screens
1997 Installed fish passage improvement on Upper Trout Creek
1998 Installed fish passage improvement on Lower Trout Creek

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription
8402100 John Day River Fish Habitat Spawning and rearing protection and passage
9404200 Trout Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project Spawning and rearing protection and passage
20514 John Day Subbasin Umbrella
9404200 Trout Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project
9405400 Oregon Bull / Cutthroat Trout Research
9306600 Oregon Fish Screening Project (this proposal)
8402100 John Day River Fish Habitat
9801600 Natural Escapement - John Day River

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2000 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 2000 cost
Personnel 6 seasonal FTE's $138,980
Fringe OPE 45% $62,541
Supplies Service & Supplies $270,000
NEPA N/A $0
Travel Perdiem $2,000
Indirect Administrative Overhead @ 35.5% $168,100
Other N/A $0
$641,621
Total estimated budget
Total FY 2000 cost$641,621
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds$0
Total FY 2000 budget request$641,621
FY 2000 forecast from 1999$0
% change from forecast0.0%
Cost sharing
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind
National Marine Fisheries Service Facility overhead and vehicle maintenance $90,876 unknown
Other budget explanation

Schedule Constraints: Schedule constraints may occur if: Contract award precludes seasonal employees being rehired in a timely manner; weather conditions prevent project access; site restraints due to landowner cooperation complications.


Reviews and recommendations

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

Recommendation:
Delay Funding
Date:
Jun 15, 1999

Comment:

Recommendation: Delay funding until the authors provide methods for determining priority of screen placement (or replacement) and monitoring of effectiveness. (medium priority)

Comments: The proposal would be improved with greater discussion of the need for the project, expected benefits and plans for monitoring. Reviewers suggest that monitoring plans might be developed in cooperation with an expansion of the Proposal No. 9801600. Because this is a continuing effort, this project may not require annual review and may be appropriate for multi-year funding based on a more detailed and comprehensive proposal, with annual review of past work.

Specific comments and questions that should also be addressed are: Objectives as presented here are somewhat too general. For example, they neglect to mention criteria/priorities to determine screen placement and do not adequately describe evaluation methods used to determine fish screen efficiency. Priority listing criteria relative to expected increases in survival should be described. Further, there is inadequate description of methodology used for the Trout Creek fishway project in this proposal.

More specific information is needed on juvenile mortality associated with outdated or poorly operating screens (relative to NMFS-designed screens that are properly maintained). With this information, the cost-effectiveness of the projects could be better assessed and prioritization schemes could be better evaluated. The proposal should expand in detail and offer some provisions for delays. It should also describe possible contingencies and a time-line.

Several statements in the proposal are unclear: Proposed fish screens are in the vicinity of improved habitat projects. How near? And is this siting by design or otherwise?

There is no correlation cited between stream productivity and areas proposed for screening. The proposal should provide estimates of the numbers of fish lost to irrigation diversions in the area and compare those numbers to other basins, to indicate the relative importance of this effort. The benefits of previous screening are not reported. In the immediate past two years, many new screens were installed, but the proposal makes no mention of monitoring and evaluation of their performance. The proposal acknowledges water quality problems in these basins (sedimentation, flood events, low summer flows, heavy irrigation use, high water temperatures, etc.), but neglects to report if they have been corrected. Failing this, the value of expensive diversion screens may be negated. The proposal notes the development of a priority listing of screens in need of replacement during 1997 and 1998, but includes a funding request for still another priority listing. The reviewers ask why another such listing is sought, and what specific sites are proposed for screen installation.


Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:


Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Costs are all in JD and Deschutes. What are outyear costs increases based on? #5-Mitchell Act pays O&M. SRT is aware of additional c/s that is not included. #6-Needs O&M but NMFS will cover . #12-No demonstration in proposal. #13-Needs more public awareness
Recommendation:
Technically Sound? Yes
Date:
Aug 20, 1999

Comment:

Provide a detailed monitoring and evaluation plan to assess biological response the fish screens.
Recommendation:
Fund pending compliance
Date:
Mar 1, 2000

Comment:

[Decision made in 12-7-99 Council Meeting]; Fund pending compliance with ISRP Comments through BPA's Contract Process
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